none
Anonymous
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 24 Jul 1998 15:10:48 GMT, Vanye...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>Oh jeez. I do not have a thin for wolves,
Liar.
1. 98/07/24 031 Re: Hypnotic Shifting:" You alt.horror.werewolves Vanyelashke
2. 98/07/24 031 Re: Why ATB Really here? alt.talk.bestiality Vanyelashke
3. 98/07/23 030 Re: Why ATB really here? alt.talk.bestiality Vanyelashke
4. 98/07/22 030 Re: Welcome Fellow Zoos and dejanews.members.soc. Vanyelashke
5. 98/07/22 030 Re: Why ATB really here? alt.talk.bestiality Vanyelashke
6. 98/07/21 029 Re: Greetings To All Zoophil dejanews.members.test Vanyelashke
7. 98/07/21 029 Re: Why ATB really here? alt.talk.bestiality Vanyelashke
8. 98/07/20 029 Re: Why ATB really here? alt.talk.bestiality Vanyelashke
9. 98/07/20 029 Thanx for the help :-) alt.horror.werewolves Vanyelashke
10. 98/07/16 028 Re: just queers, I missed so alt.horror.werewolves Vanyelashke
11. 98/07/11 027 Re: Knee Reversal? alt.horror.werewolves Vanyelashke
12. 98/07/08 027 Re: topic of the week (7/6/9 alt.books.m-lackey Vanyelashke
13. 98/06/17 025 Re: Had you lived in medieva alt.books.m-lackey Vanyelashke
14. 98/06/17 025 Re: If you mate with an anim alt.horror.werewolves Vanyelashke
15. 98/06/17 025 Re: Questions4werecritters alt.horror.werewolves Vanyelashke
16. 98/06/17 025 Re: Werecard v 1.23 alt.horror.werewolves Vanyelashke
17. 98/06/17 025 Re: Where is Queerwolf? alt.horror.werewolves Vanyelashke
18. 98/06/16 025 Re: Had you lived in medieva alt.books.m-lackey Vanyelashke
19. 98/06/16 025 Re: Well hello there alt.talk.bestiality Vanyelashke
>nor have I had any sexual encounters with Zoowolf.
We have your word to take for this. My point of view was simple. What actual reason did you have to stand up for zoowolf? Sure you have met him but what does that really mean?
Nothing.
you posted as a clueless Phool and need to lurk more.
>I find that your post was rather amusing, that you critize
>almost everything I said, yet you posted annon?
>You could have at leasat put your actual E-mail up there,
>as I would be thrilled to speak with you one on one.
Proof that you need to lurk more. My email address is posted every once in awhile.
I do not care to make it easy for anyone who doesn't pay attention to ATB to email me.
This includes you.
This is also "anon" to put as much distance between me and idiots who would trust
anyone after just meeting them. You should note that I pgp sign all my messages.
>I did not ask for a picture, as you so kindly pointed out,
>because I trust the word of some people.
I cannot and will not trust the word of someone I do not know nor have only just met.
To do so is stupidity. A lack of caution can get one's animals placed in danger.
>And yes, I did read the FAQ that was
>posted. Vanyel
Read it again.
A human that has sex with animals.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.5 for non-commercial use <http://www.nai.com>
iQA/AwUBNbics0qGPqsvHQLHEQKSigCgnA+1gWKA0h7/kDJZTEvH/Fjpeg0AoKj8
IWVwxhp3aKk81mBEPBYBCqx7
=Qqhu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anonymous
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 24 Jul 1998 18:37:59 GMT, thes...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>Ive noticed a lot of fighting over the fact that some people say they are
>RWZ and play as furry creatures online. A person can be both of course but
>it seems a lot out there in the furry and zoophile community dont think so...
Can a person be a christian and jewish?
>It boils down to facts... A person may have no pruff of being a RWZ but hell
>what does it matter as long as they respect the views of others,
Oh it matters. Too many wannabe's and posers have come through this way.
You may ask "if their intentions are good then why not welcome them?".
A wannabe/poser/furry cannot understand what it means to be RWZ. To me the
most important factor in this is the lack of having one's own animal to care
for. It has been proven over and over that the wannabe's want to start "communities"
and "fight for our rights".
Why not? They have nothing to lose. They can cut their losses by cutting their ties
to their "zoo rights" movement burning in flames. They care nothing in the end
for the well being of the animals of those who -DO-. They want fame and glory.
Animals care nothing for "zoophile" rights.
>the truth is
>no one knows the truth and the truth doesnt really matter...
Yes it does.
>Im a zoo but i have no pruff, but i dont go around hurrassing others fur being zoophiles,
Your seeing it backwards. The "zoophiles" you see being harrased are here. This group is for
the RWZ and therefore the "zoophiles" do not belong here. It is the Real World Zoo's who are
being harassed.
>so does it make me a bad person fur not having pruff.
Talk the talk.
> Hell no just because im a
>furry does not mean im not a RWZ
Much of the fur lifestyle is not within the bounds of -this- reality, thus foresaking the R
in RWZ.
An appreciation for furry art however I would consider within the bounds of reality.
You cannot live the fur lifestyle and be a RWZ in my opinion.
A_human that has sex with animals.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.5 for non-commercial use <http://www.nai.com>
iQA/AwUBNbjSQUqGPqsvHQLHEQLiWQCgmy+VgQmTAT+JJ/X185e5/9rVtyQAoOtZ
4IsYKp/1Cr2yiyaLL43fG6FB
=R8LB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anonymous
> Hmmm, most TRUE zoos who actually have sex with animals would not send
people
> off to a web site to get their jollies
This brings up a point, EQ, that I think everyone needs to consider. You say
don't send them off to another site to get their jollies. Well, what would you
recommend then? Should they go get an animal that they don't know how to
care for, just to see if they like having sex with them? Or then there is the
question of sharing. If you don't recommend they go get an animal, then what
is the other option? Sharing? I have seen you get quite offensive about people
making references to even potentially have sex with your animals.
I have seen various opinions about this. Between good friends, someone might
ask if they can have sex with another's animals. Usually, this is taboo
between zoos.
Now if someone offers another to have sex with an animal, It is usually okay
to
accept the offer.
As for my own animals, I had a difficult time sharing particular ones with
just
humans that I have been intimate with. These are the ones the emotional bond
is
closest to, and currently happens to be my only female animal. I no longer
make
the offer. My other animals, I wouldn't mind sharing at all, as long as I feel
as I
can trust the person. As for a complete stranger? I am not going to invite a
stranger into my house, let alone offer them sex with my animals.
So a guy is interested, but has no animals. What is to be recommended? "Come
to
my place, and see if you like it?" It won't happen by me. "Go get a critter,
and
have your way with it?" Doesn't seem like a responsible response, as the
person
won't know how to take care of it, and may decide that they don't want the
animal.
"Go find a pic site and get your rocks off?" Won't solve their problem. My
recommendation is to tell them to hang around for a bit, meet some people, and
maybe someone will offer to share their animals. There is one more option that
I can think of. That would be to tell them to go fence hopping. There are
several
views on fence hopping alone, and even though I have done it, I was at least
knowledgeable about, and knew the animals on a personal level for the most
part. This could be an option for some, but I wouldn't recommend it as the
potential
dangers are too great.
I don't think there is a quick way of getting sex with an animal. But this may
be a hidden benefit to animals in general, as that it is less likely to get
animals
injured by curious fetish seekers, and malicious sex pranks. I would mean that
the people would be more than just curious, and would want to spend time and
energy
to find an animals sex partner rather than just raping the first fuzzy thing
that
came across their path. Not to say that doesn't happen, but usually you won't
hear
requests from them, because they have already done so.
Sanford G. Fogg
at hot male dog cum
Anonymous
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 24 Jul 1998 01:44:07 GMT, Equa...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <6p84q0$fm3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> p...@dogsex.org wrote:
>
>> Go figure ya know, why would someone wanna give YOU any personal info about
>> themselves to you?
>
>Seems a lot of people still do, though that info is gone when I turn off the
>computer as I really do not wish to see anyone hurt.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
On Fri, 24 Jul 1998 17:30:28 GMT, Equa...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <6p9aur$onq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> da...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>> Thats to make people think twice about doing stuff to the machine, I thought
>> it had been changed a few days cause I didn't think it was a very welcoming
>> message.
>
>Seems both pop and Bigdawg tried to convince me that pop was in the gov,
>hevck he even connected to IRC with a gov account, and they said there was a
>secret reason that they were connected to a gov backing, anyone wish to use
>their systems? You may get outed even quicker then I would be interested in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>doing it
^^^^^^^^^
>
>Equamour
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
He can't even keep his lies separated by a day now.
A_human that has sex with animals.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.5 for non-commercial use <http://www.nai.com>
iQA/AwUBNbtCzEqGPqsvHQLHEQKwNwCcDnZZuQlMaPlgO7GwgP0W5Ds/YWsAoNEH
W8IF+s6DjAnzY6URNtO2ssBS
=pAza
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anonymous
> Much of the fur lifestyle is not within the bounds of -this- reality, thus foresaking the R
> in RWZ.
This is the fine point right here, In my opinion.
Take for example if someone enjoys reading fiction. They may immerse themselves deeply within
the writings of another, to the point of escapism. The reader may do this for several reasons,
including taking a break from reality. This is fine and even encouraged by society as a whole
(think of all the reading programs out there).
Furryart, anthomorphism, et al, are included into this.
Take people that participate in Medevil Fairs or Renesance Days or other similar activities.
They suspend realism to bring back the fantasies of a different ere. But at the end of they day,
they bring them selves back to the real world, and contunue to acknowledge it's existance.
What is failed to be seen is that it is a break from reality, not reality or a lifestyle in
itself.
The whole consideration of the "Real" in RWZ is reality. The reality of consequences for
actions. The reality of the safety of animals. The reality of sex with those animals. The
reality of the real world. Anything of fantasy, delusions, posing, non-existance, fake,
falsities, etc. do not belong in this newsgroup.
An example is Corarch. (sorry, Cor, but you have been a prominant example, so I might as well
continue it.) He admits to having interests of furry type things, and others have been finger
pointing saying "he can do it, why can't I?" The reason is that he knows when to distinguish
when fantasy is appropriate and when reality is necessary. I have never seen (in my time with
this group) a post by Cor to this group that wasn't firmly placed in reality. The problem with
the undesirable persons here, is that they do NOT have a firm grip on reality. Fuzzyfox with his
"mightier than thou" mentality is a prime example. He is lost so much within himself that he no
longer sees the reality of the rest of the world.
> An appreciation for furry art however I would consider within the bounds of reality.
> You cannot live the fur lifestyle and be a RWZ in my opinion.
For the most part I will agree, because many can't seem to seperate fantasy and reality.
Anonymous
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 26 Jul 1998 23:57:00 GMT, vic_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>I would like to preface what I'm about to say thus: I have NOTHING personal
>against Dawg. I have no reason to suspect he has any alterior motivation in
>the zoophiles.net project. I do, however, want to bring some information to
>light...
I have my doubts about your motives. I will give you my reason in a bit.
>Hawk and I, co-administrators of the zoophile.org project, worked with Dawg
>to link our private IRC servers. Amid the linking project, Dawg revealed he
>is a minor and that he does not own the T-3 connection he uses, nor does he
>own any of the computer equipment he uses. He claims he relies on sneaking
>his usage of the line and equipment for zoo purposes past their true owner.
Interesting. He claims it to be a 256K line. Someone is lying.
I have heard from others that he is indeed a minor. Definitely a reason to avoid such a person. Of course it is a good idea to avoid -all- zoophile web servers.
>Upon hearing this, Hawk and I immediately cancelled the link project. I urge
>caution to anyone considering getting an account with zoophiles.net ... you
>risk prosecution for exposing a minor to adult material if you put anything
>explicit on such an account.
Here is where I think your -alterior- motives show. You have stated again and again that beasty pictures are legal to have available in the USA. What difference does it make that it would be on zoophile.net? None. The reason is simple. By your statement, the equipment is not owned by bigdawg thus no different than putting beasty porn or explicit materials on -any- webserver.
You and Hawk are merely pissed off that someone is attempting to take some of your infamy.
>Additionally, since he has no legal right to
>the equipment, -anyone- can peruse the information on it ... need I mention
>his parents might?
Your point?
>Granted, zoophile.org has had its problems; due to a number of problems, we
>have been offline for nearly two months due to a number of problems.
>However, it will soon be restored to full service and our free webpage offer
>will be restored. The equipment we have at our disposal may not rate well
>versus the equipment Dawg has access to (such as his T-3 line), but it does
>fully belong to us. No one else has any legal access to it without our
>permission.
Oh! So the police cannot come in with a search warrant and seize your equipment?
Phools and liars.
A_human that has sex with animals (Shall I mention I smell strongly of mares?)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.5 for non-commercial use <http://www.nai.com>
iQA/AwUBNbuQfEqGPqsvHQLHEQLLtwCg05r+9/NSmY3B2zJL1rfFgF6qDfsAnit0
bE4R/1dxfucYSTMtOToqUCtL
=5SFv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anonymous
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 26 Jul 1998 04:55:14 GMT, sta...@counsellor.com (stasya) wrote:
>"Ramseys T. Bull" <ramseysthebull@junoNOT_NEEDED.com> wrote:
><reply in ATB as well as email>
>
>>Greetings from the field!
>>
>>I try to be observant of those humans running all
>>around me. Chasing after their lives, so it seams.
>>
>>I've often wondered why women hate zoos so?
>
>Greetings Ramseys <gentle chuckle>
>
>Sounds like a good entry line for me to comment on...
>
>Since this is ATB, I'm sure my response will be seen as
>off-topic but... The solution there is to kill filter
>anything I post or ignore me. The better amongst the group
>are welcome to send out cancels to delete my posts.
You know you are not welcome here yet you persist eh? Why?
>I gather that it hasn't occurred to anyone here that to some
>women, a relationship with a zoo or bestialist is a welcome
>relief.
Yea and it's often said of women who like to be around gay men.
>Seems that I managed to out myself to just such a woman last
>year without knowing it at first.
Risky. You were willing to risk your animals how many times now?
>Now, almost a year later, we have admitted we stumbled into
>our relationship. We've had our 'disagreements' but those
>were never over my screwing dogs.
>
>Do we love each other? Well, yes. Love means different
>things to each of us of course but discovering those
>meanings is something we both plan to do.
Perhaps this is just good friendship? a platonic relationship?
>So, I have to say that not all women are 'connivers' out to
>control men.
>
>Any 'control' being done is quite mutual and with the
>consent of the controlled.
To a point I agree. The men who allow themselves to be "pussy-whipped" that I have seen more or less consent to it even if they whine about it while she is away.
>Zoo, zoophile, zoosexual, RWZ...
>
>All labels.
>
>The only power they have is what you give them.
Furry, beasty, Christian, jew. all labels as well. Labels are in some part necessary in the world. They are base definitions for forming a thought. Base meaning that the label only covers a couple basic points of a persons label.
>I wonder how much of that power is given because one seeks
>acceptance?
In the case of Zoowolf and Fozzy I would say alot has been given up.
><huge grin...>
>The bottom line here is that being a zoophile/bestialist
>(pick the term you are most comfortable with) has actually
>enhanced my relationship with a woman who isn't.
That's good if it makes you happy and doesn't detract from your animals.
>Which of course, by my standards and perhaps those of a few
>people here, makes her very rare and special indeed.
One can hope that she never turns on you. You have opened that door and are taking a big risk. Who will pay the price if she does?
>No, I'm not sorry to inject a post that isn't filled with
>hate or derogatory comments about others. I felt it was
>time for the lurkers out there to become aware that life as
>an animal-fucker doesn't have to be mostly hate and hiding
>in fear.
I'm waiting for that day still. The above paragraph in itself shows your disdain for Rwz's.
The world is not a happy fuzzy place. Don't give people a false sense of security.
Hiding is a reality. Hiding in fear is not. Hiding for the safety of one's animals is.
>If you want more of this sickeningly positive outlook on
>life, feel free to browse my site. It was that way when I
>started it almost 3 years ago and I expect it will remain
>that way.
Translation.
"If you want to delude yourself into thinking everyone will accept that you have sexual intercourse with animals and no one will ever betray you then visit my site."
It was just a few days ago you posted about being bitter from your having to move because of what Equamour did to you and you still have the nerve to tell people that everything is great for those who -do-?
Your a hypocrite.
You also have to take partial blame for your circumstances. You had many people tell you that your trip to help equamour was a bad idea before you committed to it. You didn't listen and got burned.
I am just amazed at how you can feel good about telling people everything is rosey.
>If you haven't figured the url out from all the selective
>posts about some of the pages on it, it's
>http://aaron.pahrump.com
>---
Nice plug for your page. May I suggest the group
dejanews.members.soc.zoowolf.zoo-world-order
You may find people more suited to yourself. People looking for "leaders" or web-site holders.
>Aaron/Stasya - a real person to those around him IRL.
A real person who takes too many chances at the risk of his animals in my opinion.
A_human that has sex with animals.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.5 for non-commercial use <http://www.nai.com>
iQA/AwUBNbuRiEqGPqsvHQLHEQKcuACg9OMWQZ03AaaaWcWa0QGvwlxFuUgAoLsp
vLRZiZ3jahgp0E/xvxR9Rskr
=WVxW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Equa...@my-dejanews.com
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
> Equa...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > Hmmm, most TRUE zoos who actually have sex with animals would not send
> people
> > off to a web site to get their jollies
>
> This brings up a point, EQ, that I think everyone needs to consider. You say
> don't send them off to another site to get their jollies. Well, what would you
> recommend then? Should they go get an animal that they don't know how to
> care for, just to see if they like having sex with them? Or then there is the
There are options.. For me, one way which I learned about working with
horses was volunteering at stables. Sure i didn't get to just work with
them, but I learned mucking, grooming and training techniques. Sure, i
didn't get paid, but I did learn a lot. Sure, I didn't learn the names of
all the equipment which I saw used, but I never needed to. And if you are
lucky, which I was, just maybe you will find the horse for you.
> question of sharing. If you don't recommend they go get an animal, then what
> is the other option? Sharing? I have seen you get quite offensive about people
> making references to even potentially have sex with your animals.
Yes, I have the opinion that my mare is like my wife, and I hold human
expectations of her. Sure, as has been shown, I do have double standards,
but I I am not sure which I would rather have, someone asking me, or someone
going behind my back. The saying "What a person doesn't know wont hurt
them." does apply sometimes anyways.
> Now if someone offers another to have sex with an animal, It is usually okay
> to accept the offer.
When I lived with Hossie I was wanting to talk to him about his mare, and one
night when we were outside, I asked, with a lot of hisitation. I wanted him
to know that I had double standards, and still do.. What is mine is mine,
but if you wish to share what is yours, then I would be happy to try. His
comment was "If she doesn't mind, go for it" I was very shocked, and
confused, but happy.. :)
> As for my own animals, I had a difficult time sharing particular ones with
> just humans that I have been intimate with. These are the ones the emotional
> bond is closest to, and currently happens to be my only female animal. I no
> longer make the offer.
I only have 2 animals to my name, my mare and my filly. So far only one
person was offered to be with Bud, Mathus. Yeah, I was hoping to make him
happy, and to have a mare to be with would make me happy.. :) Could say in
some ways I was trying to buy his love. Also I did offer Sally to Hossie as
well, he did say he tried her, but she didn't feel right.
> My other animals, I wouldn't mind sharing at all, as long as I feel as I
> can trust the person. As for a complete stranger? I am not going to invite a
> stranger into my house, let alone offer them sex with my animals.
This is a weird thing. When I came online, I was a very confused man. I
talked to Hossie in email a bit, told him what was going on, and he offered
me to move with him, and though I didn't think I would, I did, and am glad I
did. But it shows that sometimes even strangers need help and sometimes its
for the good of both.
> So a guy is interested, but has no animals. What is to be recommended?
My honest recomendation is above. it worked for me, and I know I always get
upset when people come on and cry that they have no access to horses. I have
barely ever had no access to them, though I may not have gotten any sex from
them, I still was with them.
> "Go get a critter, and have your way with it?" Doesn't seem like a responsible
> response, as the person won't know how to take care of it, and may decide
> that they don't want the animal.
Another recomendation which once again may not get you much sex, but will get
you help is board your animal. Sure you are not with them 24 hours a day, but
if you find a reputable stable they should know all about animal care, and ask
them questions. Talk to your vet. It may be expensive, but I know for a fact
it is worth it.
> My recommendation is to tell them to hang around for a bit, meet some people,
> and maybe someone will offer to share their animals.
IMHO, alls this shows is how good the sex is, though it does give them the
opurtunity to if they like the animals ect, but then so does my idea about
visiting the stables and volunteering.
> There is one more option that I can think of. That would be to tell them to go
> fence hopping. There are several views on fence hopping alone, and even though
> I have done it, I was at least knowledgeable about, and knew the animals on a
> personal level for the most part. This could be an option for some, but I
> wouldn't recommend it as the potential dangers are too great.
I have done it as well a long time ago and was almost caught. It can be
scarey and if you are in the midst of some good sex, you may not hear or see
something, or someone coming, then you are caught. I will admit, with the
one horse I was with I knew her for a long while. But I do agree that I do
not like people who will not get to know the animal and just go for a quicky.
Not that I am against sex for sex, there should be some reason to see the
horse besides sex.
Equamour
<Hoping this may be RWZ material, or well put at least>
Anonymous
> Excuse me? I own every piece of equipment I have running here, from my TV to
> my PC's. My parents have almost nothing todo with my server, exept for the
> ovious like the electic bill and stuff. And I do work for my uplink. I had to
> work for a LONG time to get all this equipment I have running. And last time
> I checked age did NOT define ability.
Unless you are independent of your parents in the court's eye, then you own
nothing. You parents are liable for all of your equipment and all information upon
it. Vic Adams was correct in any person that has contact with you concerning
sexually explicit materials (zoo or not) can be extradited into your state for
persecution of transporting sexually explicit materials and for all charges that
can be associated with minors, like contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and
any other associated charges they can slap on as well. As you are a minor, there is
a higher probability of such actions being taken rather than a phone complaint
removing the offending material. And only one such phone complaint to your parents
would bring your world crashing around your shoulders.
Also on a side note: If you parents ever did find the zoo related information, they
would be able to press charges upon anyone that has contact with you. These would
be civil charges, and unlike criminal charges, the words "beyond a reasonable
doubt" are not necessary for a civil ruling.
I don't know about everyone else, but even though I don't have much to lose in
being sued for damages, I am not going to set up a chance at losing my animals. Now
for all you wanna-be's out there. Think on this. Even if you have nothing to lose,
his parents can sue your parents if you a minor. Or, they can sue adults for
garnished wages to make the payments. In this sue happy world of ours, it could be
such a ploy to knowingly let something of this nature be set up, then turn around
and be horrified at the attempts to corrupt and destroy their child's future. Would
be a hard case to prove that they were in full consenting knowledge of the
situation, while they would seek to live off of other peoples labors for life.
Call me paranoid, but also acknowledge that it can be a real case scenario.
No thanks.
Sanford G. Fogg
Anonymous
> Question for the equine RWZs ... I use Repelex on my horses (when the flies
> get too bad ... I hate using chemicals, normally) but have found that a) Off
> and others of the same type do nothing for me, and b) Repelex works, but I
> end up with either a rash, headache, or both. How do you keep bug-free on
> those hot nights when a bit of steamy sex in the pasture leads to a
> multitude of bug-bites itching your ass (or worse places)?
Skin So Soft by Avon. It was originally designed to be a Skin Softener, but
works fantastically as a bug repellent, and softens you skin while your at it.
The smell of it is horrid, but I have used it for years and found that it deters
most biting flies (including black flies) and mosquitoes. It should be available
in most of your department chain stores like Ames, Walmarts, or K-mart. It is
the only Avon product to ever be sold and distributed beyond the Avon lady. Of
course, if you want your neighbors to really look at you weird, get the local
Avon lady to stop by with your order of it. I used to do this myself, and they
are quite aware of the non proclaimed abilities of Skin So Soft.
Now I have heard claims that Skintastic by Off is a combination of Avon's
product and their own bug repellents, but I have not had as good results with
it.
Another solution which is not a common one, is wild onion. I have wild onion
that grows all around my property, and it works tremendously well at reducing
the biting bug populations. I also clean out my water troughs on about a 3 day
rotation (primarily to get rid of algae, any helpful hints?) but it reduces the
amount of insect larva as well. This has worked well enough for me this year
that I have used minimal Repel-X by Farnam this year, and have yet to use any
bug repellent for my self this year. This fall may be a different story when the
local bug populations are worse. But right now, I sweat so profusely while
having sex that any bug dope would be ineffective shortly after I start sex.
Then the one final solution... just bring the horse in the house. I do! :)
Cor in Archenland
>Skin So Soft by Avon. It was originally designed to be a Skin Softener, but
>works fantastically as a bug repellent, and softens you skin while your at
it.
Hmmm .. sorry, Sanford, I perhaps should have been a little clearer. When I
said Off and other similar products, I was including SSS ... my mother uses
it (swears by it, actually) and I used it on my horses for awhile ... but it
works for, oh, approximately 10 minutes for me -- then all the bugs in the
world home in :P
>I also clean out my water troughs on about a 3 day
>rotation (primarily to get rid of algae, any helpful hints?) but it reduces
the
>amount of insect larva as well.
Orinarily this works (though this year, we've have an overabundance of rain
during June, making for a rather wet haying season, and an increased fly
population). As for the algae, I've found two things helps immensely:
keeping your water in shaded areas (algae loves the sun) and, more
importantly, using a bleach solution when cleaning.
... sweat so profusely while
>having sex that any bug dope would be ineffective shortly after I start
sex.
I think that's my problem. Even at night, until very late (and I do get up
early, as you may have noticed!) its been staying pretty hot. The only
product I found ever worked for any length of time for me was the Army stuff
that was loaded with DEET -- which, of course, is now bad and is being
removed, to the joy of flies everywhere.
>Then the one final solution... just bring the horse in the house. I do! :)
>
>Sanford G. Fogg
>at hot male dog cum
Heh. My stables are attached to the basement, so I *could* bring her in
anytime and be relatively fly-free. But while we've had the dogs, sheep,
and goats in the house many times, I'm not sure I'd trust the floors to take
the weight of a full-sized horse inside the actual house.
Besides, what I've always loved about summer was the joy of being naked out
in the pasture making passionate love to my mare. It may have to be at
night, so as not to be seen by the neighbours, but its still wonderful.
Cor in Archenland
"I think *true* happiness can only be found in the wanton indulgence of
animals." Hobbes.
"Ummm, DEET's bad, mmmokay?"
Anonymous
> Interestingly enough, at this moment I too smell strongly of, well,
> one particular mare. The only damper to our love-making tonight was
> the annoying biting of approximately one trillion mosquitos ...
> *she* had fly-wipe on, I didn't.
>
> Question for the equine RWZs ... I use Repelex on my horses (when
> the flies get too bad ... I hate using chemicals, normally) but
> have found that a) Off and others of the same type do nothing for
> me, and b) Repelex works, but I end up with either a rash, headache,
> or both. How do you keep bug-free on those hot nights when a bit
> of steamy sex in the pasture leads to a multitude of bug-bites
> itching your ass (or worse places)?
I have a dislike for the highly toxic/poisonous chemicals myself
(repel-X smells extremely toxic as well), one thing I've found that
works well is dilute Avon Skin-so-soft bath oil (NOT the SSS brand
insect repellent, I have no experience with it, and suspect it works
no better but costs tons more).
Mixed in a 1:4 ratio with water and put in a spray bottle, it's easily
applied (shake first, the oil will obviously separate from the water
over time) and is fairly inert (I've never had a hint of chemical
irritation when I get it all over my skin), yet it's also quite
effective in my experience for both flies and mosquitoes-- I use it
on my horses all the time (it's *all* I'll use on them).
Now I could throw in a token joke on the strong, perfumey odor of the
stuff (like how it's so strong even the flies can't stand the smell
:P), but I actually kinda like the way it smells (hey, it sure beats
smelling like a chemical factory). While nothing beats the natural
scents of equine subaceous secretions, SSS comes in a close second
for enhancing the mood... ;)
Proteus
proteiatjunodotcom
Anonymous
Hash: SHA1
On 27 Jul 1998 10:09:36 +0200, Sanford g. fogg <nob...@replay.com>
wrote:
>Another solution which is not a common one, is wild onion. I have
wild onion
>that grows all around my property, and it works tremendously well at
reducing
>the biting bug populations. I also clean out my water troughs on
about a 3 day
>rotation (primarily to get rid of algae, any helpful hints?)
I have a friend that uses a bleach to water ratio in their troughs. I
have yet to try it out but the ratio is 4-6 ounces of bleach to every
150 gallons of water.
A_human that has sex with animals.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.5 for non-commercial use <http://www.nai.com>
iQA/AwUBNbxU28HobftZ/r9eEQKuvACfRlrA6WY7OBkSsJu+GEG/+wE9AMkAoPHu
Kz462ZYCUE/vWYNXoDAW8LrK
=R+bj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Equa...@my-dejanews.com
"Cor in Archenland" <ce...@connix.com> wrote:
Just a note to you cor, one idea which you could try, though I only heard it
worked from a TV show is slice and orange and rub it on your body, heck if I
know what its suppose to do, but its suppose to work. And I hope Cor we can
talk again soon, I really do miss you.
Equamour
Anonymous
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 26 Jul 1998 17:50:12 GMT, thes...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>You say im not a real world zoo... but how. I do not know you and you dont
>know me. And so it is imposible fur you to see the truth about me. But then
>again i feel the same way about you. Hell i dont know wether your a zoo or
>not. And frankly i dont care. This can be dragged on fur a long time, but y
>should it be its easy enought to see that we both might not be zoos in others
>eyes but yet we might be...
>
>Slyfox
On Sun, 26 Jul 1998 17:57:07 GMT, thes...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>And i know most people would not agree with me on this but Equamour pony is
>showing some improvement.
How did you come to this conclusion? You've parted from reality. Your question to how you have been seen as -not- a RWZ has been answered by yourself.
A_human
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.5 for non-commercial use <http://www.nai.com>
iQA/AwUBNbtHJkqGPqsvHQLHEQJ/dQCfbCM7oqJpNghZt+94AO3gZGYwVogAoIj+
Zo2icFFe7Z1hKpN8krGb7SA1
=xlsK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anonymous
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 26 Jul 1998 22:05:27 -0400, "Cor in Archenland"
<ce...@connix.com> wrote:
>Anonymous wrote in message <1998072701...@replay.com>...
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>>Interesting. He claims it to be a 256K line. Someone is lying.
>
>
>Only one?
Granted there is definitely more than one. I just wanted to start
small.
Can't get much smaller than Eagle.
>>I have heard from others that he is indeed a minor. Definitely a
reason to
>avoid such a person. Of course it is a good idea to avoid -all-
>zoophile web servers.
>
>
>Agreed. And that includes accessing the pages. Use Anonymiser.
I have used nothing but anonymiser when accessing places with a
"questionable" reputation.
>>A_human that has sex with animals (Shall I mention I smell strongly
>>of mares?)
>
>
>Interestingly enough, at this moment I too smell strongly of, well,
>one particular mare. The only damper to our love-making tonight was
the
>annoying biting of approximately one trillion mosquitos ... *she* had
>fly-wipe on, I didn't.
>
>Question for the equine RWZs ... I use Repelex on my horses (when the
>flies get too bad ... I hate using chemicals, normally) but have
found that
>a) Off and others of the same type do nothing for me, and b) Repelex
works,
>but I end up with either a rash, headache, or both. How do you keep
>bug-free on those hot nights when a bit of steamy sex in the pasture
leads to a
>multitude of bug-bites itching your ass (or worse places)?
>
>Cor in (scratch, scratch) Archenland
Thankfully the mosquitoes have not been that bad lately here. Bad
enough to end up with some itches in the most annoying places however.
I use Ultrashield on my horses for the flies during the day, for they
are particularly bad right now. I like the smell of it as well, unlike
many of the other repellants. I have used ultrashield on myself a few
times (even though the directions say not to) and it works. Whether it
gives you a headache or not only a test will tell or a comparison of
ingredients.
It definitely smells better than the likes of Off.
My biggest problem with nights of steamy sex in the pasture is my
glasses fogging up.
>"I think *true* happiness can only be found in the wet heat of a sexy
mare."
>Cor.
That about sums it up doesn't it? *snicker*
A_human that has sex with animals.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.5 for non-commercial use <http://www.nai.com>
iQA/AwUBNbxlF8HobftZ/r9eEQJCUACg3UxH5GWLJKjE0AisGPjWwnlYASkAoLHU
qYf2n3ozzyVSqkdh/Ic1iV6g
=tVWi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
amz1...@my-dejanews.com
In article <1998072616...@replay.com>,
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Fri, 24 Jul 1998 18:37:59 GMT, thes...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >Ive noticed a lot of fighting over the fact that some people say they are
> >RWZ and play as furry creatures online. A person can be both of course but
> >it seems a lot out there in the furry and zoophile community dont think so...
>
> Can a person be a christian and jewish?
First off, sexuality is not a religion. A man has a right to have dreams and
fantasies, and if he keeps them in the proper context, they will not interefer
with ones real life interactions. Simple, aint it?
> >It boils down to facts... A person may have no pruff of being a RWZ but hell
> >what does it matter as long as they respect the views of others,
>
> Oh it matters. Too many wannabe's and posers have come through this way.
>
> You may ask "if their intentions are good then why not welcome them?".
>
> A wannabe/poser/furry cannot understand what it means to be RWZ. To me the
> most important factor in this is the lack of having one's own animal to care
> for.
Second, let's examine a few labels you threw into the soup...
Furries can and sometimes do own animals, in fact that chance greatly
increases the chance that they will have one. OOOOOOOpppps
And what of the man who is afraid of having sexual interactions with the
animalh he loves so much, such a man would neatly fit into your wannabe
label, yet would probably one day (after others pointed him down the path of
true zoo enlightenment-something only RWZ's are capable of) may fit neatly
into your RWZ label... OOOOOOOOOOOOppppss
Now your pozer label is different as it implies that they are liars to begin
with... whether or not they will come around is only up to time to decide...
Next time bud, think before you open your big mouth :)
> It has been proven over and over that the wannabe's want to start
>"communities" and "fight for our rights".
No, these are just examples of childishness adn shortsighted thinking coupled
with the egotistical attitude that they have the power to change the world!
> Talk the talk.
Yes, but think before you do it right?
> You cannot live the fur lifestyle and be a RWZ in my opinion.
You are perfectly entitled to that opinion :) Even if it isn't all that well
thought out.
> A_human that has sex with animals.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.5 for non-commercial use <http://www.nai.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBNbjSQUqGPqsvHQLHEQLiWQCgmy+VgQmTAT+JJ/X185e5/9rVtyQAoOtZ
> 4IsYKp/1Cr2yiyaLL43fG6FB
> =R8LB
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
TK
Saranthyrr T.
>
> My biggest problem with nights of steamy sex in the pasture is my
> glasses fogging up.
>
I've had the exact same problems in the past, and finally gave up
wearing the glasses when things get steamy. I could see just as poorly
without the fogged glasses as with them, and it's more fun to do most
everything by feel.
S.T.
Anonymous
A Human wrote:
> > Can a person be a christian and jewish?
> First off, sexuality is not a religion.
True, but the point here is that most people will agree that having more than one
religion is not a viable combination where as one could not commit themselves fully
to either one of the beliefs as they are naturally in conflict. In this example,
what would be the status of the New Testament for the jewish christian? In reference
to ATB, the question is "what is the status of reality to the furry RWZ?" There is
no clear answer for both thus the furry RWZ does not have a clear concept of
reality.
> A man has a right to have dreams and
> fantasies, and if he keeps them in the proper context, they will not interefer
> with ones real life interactions.
ALF... alt.lifestyles.furry. Lifestyles. Furry. With combination of these two words,
and if one were to look at the "Furvey", it becomes apparent that to be a true
furry, then one's lifestyle (ergo: thought and behavioral patterns) should reflect
that of a furry, which is a fantasy existence. ATB charter calls for Realism.
Realism on ATB is not the exoneration and exaltation of furriness, but the real
interaction of sexual intercourse with animals. It is the difference of the fantasy
lifestyle of a furry and the real life of a bestialist. These are two extremes of
the same line.
As referenced above, ALF dispenses with reality, and ATB declares it as a
requirement to be followed. Just as in the religious reference, one disregards the
New Testament while the other declares it as a requirement to be followed. See the
analogy now?
> Simple, aint it?
Obviously not.
> > A wannabe/poser/furry cannot understand what it means to be RWZ. To me the
> > most important factor in this is the lack of having one's own animal to care
> > for.
> Second, let's examine a few labels you threw into the soup...
>
> Furries can and sometimes do own animals, in fact that chance greatly
> increases the chance that they will have one. OOOOOOOpppps
There are millions of pets owned by Americans alone. Take this world wide, and
include farm animals. Are all these animal owners to be welcomed into this forum
just because they have animals? Just because they have the potential of coming into
sexual contact with them? I don't think so. Many of them would not be understanding,
nor desired here. How does that go? "OOOOOOOpppps"?
> And what of the man who is afraid of having sexual interactions with the
> animalh he loves so much, such a man would neatly fit into your wannabe
> label, yet would probably one day (after others pointed him down the path of
> true zoo enlightenment-something only RWZ's are capable of) may fit neatly
> into your RWZ label... OOOOOOOOOOOOppppss
What would the person that has yet to have coitus with animals have to contribute to
this forum? If after that person determines that sex with animals is a realistic
part of his life, then he would be welcome here, and would no longer fit under the
label of wannabe. Is it the goal of ATB to "point him down the path of true zoo
enlightenment?" No, I don't see that any where in the charter here. How does that go
again? "OOOOOOOOOOOOppppss"?
> Now your pozer label is different as it implies that they are liars to begin
> with... whether or not they will come around is only up to time to decide...
Hey, got one right! But while they pose, and are full of lies, they are not welcome
here.
> Next time bud, think before you open your big mouth :)
Apparently he did. I have found nothing wrong with what he has posted, nor do I
disagree with it.
> > It has been proven over and over that the wannabe's want to start
> >"communities" and "fight for our rights".
>
> No, these are just examples of childishness adn shortsighted thinking coupled
> with the egotistical attitude that they have the power to change the world!
Yes, I will agree, and I from what I read, you just had to reword what was implied
by what he said. But that does not change them not being wanted here.
> > Talk the talk.
>
> Yes, but think before you do it right?
It helps one from appearing to be an idiot, a wanker, a wannabe, a furry, a poser,
or non realistic. Definitely recommended.
> > You cannot live the fur lifestyle and be a RWZ in my opinion.
>
> You are perfectly entitled to that opinion :) Even if it isn't all that well
> thought out.
The big picture here includes gray area. The area between the extremes of Furry and
RWZ. RWZ's proclaim that zoo and furry are not compatible. Furries proclaim that
zoos and furry are not compatible. Both sides of the argument agree. Those that
don't agree are those that are in the middle in the gray area. They are not fully
furry, or they are not fully RWZ. The ones that are RWZ know enough to leave furry
where furry belongs, and know the reality is one of the core principles of ATB. They
post appropriately. The ones that aren't RWZ argue the point, because usually, they
don't understand this differing point. They are blind to the line they walk. Thus
they don't walk the walk, and they don't talk the talk, and they are not well
received here.
Personal opinion of mine is that I could care less what art someone likes, or what
they wank their crank to. But when I read posts on ATB, I would like to see the
posts based in reality, and not some fantasy, as I am not interested in what their
fantasies are. If I want fantasy, I should be reading a different newsgroup, not
this one.
Anonymous
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 27 Jul 1998 21:46:01 GMT, amz1...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>A quick note to point out a glaring blunder here...
>
>In article <1998072616...@replay.com>,
> Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Fri, 24 Jul 1998 18:37:59 GMT, thes...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> >Ive noticed a lot of fighting over the fact that some people say
>> >they are RWZ and play as furry creatures online. A person can be
>> >both of course but it seems a lot out there in the furry and
>> >zoophile community dont think so...
>>
>> Can a person be a christian and jewish?
>
>First off, sexuality is not a religion. A man has a right to have
>dreams and fantasies, and if he keeps them in the proper context,
>they will not interefer with ones real life interactions.
>Simple, aint it?
I was trying to make a point which you so obviously glossed over. You
cannot be two things at once. Someone living the fantasy life of a
furry cannot be a RWZ.
They are opposites, the same as a Christian and Person who is Jewish
would be.
A christian believes Jesus is lord and saviour. People who are jewish
believe he was a false prophet. Opposites.
A furry believes that an animal is trapped inside them. The type of
furry I refer to here does not keep their fantasies in the proper
context as you state.
To me, a real world zoo lives in the here and now. faces reality and
lives for their animals.
>> >It boils down to facts... A person may have no pruff of being a
>> >RWZ but hell what does it matter as long as they respect the views
>> >of others,
>> Oh it matters. Too many wannabe's and posers have come through this
>>way.
>> You may ask "if their intentions are good then why not welcome
>>them?".
>> A wannabe/poser/furry cannot understand what it means to be RWZ. To
>> me the most important factor in this is the lack of having one's
>> own animal to care for.
>Second, let's examine a few labels you threw into the soup...
>Furries can and sometimes do own animals, in fact that chance greatly
>increases the chance that they will have one. OOOOOOOpppps
oops? you having a problem? Furries can and do have animals and many
of them -still- don't live in the real world. The one who accidently
sent in pictures of sexual acts between his animal and his self to get
developed is one such example. Taking pictures of such an act was
stupidity in itself.
How did he ever figure on safely developing them?
He risked his animals because he was not being realistic. The reason R
is in RWZ.
>And what of the man who is afraid of having sexual interactions with
>the animalh he loves so much, such a man would neatly fit into your
>wannabe label, yet would probably one day (after others pointed him
>down the path of true zoo enlightenment-something only RWZ's are
>capable of) may fit
>neatly into your RWZ label... OOOOOOOOOOOOppppss
If that day comes then he will be. As of now he is not. No more needs
saying. Somehow I don't see someone who is "afraid" of sex with
animals could ever be a RWZ. Something is not quite right in that
example of yours.
What someone may or may not become is irrelevant. They have no
business posting here if they are not walking the walk or talking the
talk in this WORLD NOW. The W in RWZ.
>Now your pozer label is different as it implies that they are liars
>to begin with... whether or not they will come around is only up to
>time to decide...
Posers are lacking the Z in RWZ. And the R and the W.
>> It has been proven over and over that the wannabe's want to start
>>"communities" and "fight for our rights".
>
>No, these are just examples of childishness adn shortsighted thinking
>coupled with the egotistical attitude that they have the power to
>change the world!
You say tomato I say Tomokato.
>> Talk the talk.
>
>Yes, but think before you do it right?
Look who is talking.
>> You cannot live the fur lifestyle and be a RWZ in my opinion.
>
>You are perfectly entitled to that opinion :) Even if it isn't all
>that well thought out.
It's well thought out. It's been proven and continues to be proven.
Tell me. What animals do you have in your life?
A_human that has sex with animals
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.5 for non-commercial use <http://www.nai.com>
iQA/AwUBNbzuVcHobftZ/r9eEQKEVACg3GsY/NMBWHYRIl6Zf5stC4pLfzkAoMWm
E1eugO/Fe8Yg4F3v8+aUDtb0
=N18X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Equa...@my-dejanews.com
amz1...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
Tomokato, you do not hafta worry as Corarch has already proclaimed
you a RWZ already. If I could find his post, it says the only people
who get to go to Zootopia is a RWZ, so you can thank Cor for making
you one. I wonder how many other people who went to Zootopia "Like
the owner, who people consider to be an animal rapist for raping
anothers dog at the gathering before."
Equamour
djali
: In article <6pisep$jgv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
: amz1...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
: you a RWZ already. If I could find his post, it says the only people
: who get to go to Zootopia is a RWZ, so you can thank Cor for making
: you one. I wonder how many other people who went to Zootopia "Like
Spoken like the fool you are EQ. Do you really think your reassurances are
worth anything to anyone here? I do find it amusing though how you play
RWZ. your one of the best wannabe's Ive yet seen.. Its not really the same
as being RWZ is it? didnt think so.
: the owner, who people consider to be an animal rapist for raping
: anothers dog at the gathering before."
You really ought to watch where you try to cast your shadow of hate.
really.
nevermind the fact that you havent a clue about what it is you think your
talking about.
amz1...@my-dejanews.com
Equa...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <6pisep$jgv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> amz1...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> who get to go to Zootopia is a RWZ, so you can thank Cor for making
> you one. I wonder how many other people who went to Zootopia "Like
> anothers dog at the gathering before."
>
EQ people can proclaim me to be whatever the fucking wish for all I care, as
long as it does not infringe upon my rights as a human being. And as for
Zootopia, I dont think I'd feel comfortable up there anymore thank you very
much.
And by the way that was a -very- cheap shot... Philo is one of the kindest
most gentle people I know, but he plays a mean Atomic Shuffle. What's more
EQ, is lsat time I checked he hadn't even come close to outing anyone.
TK
Tall Thin Jones
An> I have seen various opinions about this. Between good friends, someone
An> might ask if they can have sex with another's animals. Usually, this is
An> taboo between zoos.
Not that I know of.
In fact, Equamour and that character who kills dogs are the only
two I have known of for a while who have problems with their animals
having sex with other humans, other than the safety issues.
... Like dumpster-diving behind the nuclear plant...
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR]
Pristan Etallion
->First off, sexuality is not a religion.
You mean that it is not one officially recognized by the council of churches
or that sex cannot be a religion? If the latter than you have a rather
myopic view. I hold Sunday morning brayer services religiously.
PN
--
Nothing shocks me more in the men of religion and their flocks then
their... pretensions to be the only religious people.
(Jean Guehenno)
Equa...@my-dejanews.com
djali <dj...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
> Spoken like the fool you are EQ. Do you really think your reassurances are
> worth anything to anyone here? I do find it amusing though how you play
> RWZ. your one of the best wannabe's Ive yet seen.. Its not really the same
> as being RWZ is it? didnt think so.
Actually it was a joke, saying how RWZ's seem to claim things and Cor did
claim that anyone who went to Zootopia was a RWZ. I would quote the message,
but I'm not very good at dejanews, and don't have archives but dejanews. And
how can I be a wannabe? I have animals, I look after them, heck I used to
have sex with them, I care about them, what more do I need to do to be a RWZ,
love all zoos, sorry, thats not to RW. Hate all zoos, thats not RW either.
> You really ought to watch where you try to cast your shadow of hate.
> really. nevermind the fact that you havent a clue about what it is you think
> your talking about.
Hmmmm, seems i am just quoting what I read on the newsgroups, I did a search
on something and saw that post, and then read it all. And who is casting
hate? I actually like Philo, he don't talk to me, neither does Cor, but
doesn't mean I gotta show them the same hate as they show me.
Equamour
djali
: In article <6pl0bs$n...@news-central.tiac.net>,
: djali <dj...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
: Actually it was a joke, saying how RWZ's seem to claim things and Cor did
: claim that anyone who went to Zootopia was a RWZ. I would quote the message,
: but I'm not very good at dejanews, and don't have archives but dejanews. And
How convenient.
: how can I be a wannabe? I have animals, I look after them, heck I used to
: have sex with them, I care about them, what more do I need to do to be a RWZ,
: love all zoos, sorry, thats not to RW. Hate all zoos, thats not RW either.
How many times does it need to be explained to you?
Im sure were up t o15-20 times that its been layed out in laymans terms.
If you dont know by now you never will.
: Hmmmm, seems i am just quoting what I read on the newsgroups, I did a search
Quoting who?
: on something and saw that post, and then read it all. And who is casting
Read it all? no I doubt you followed the thread and read it all else you
wouldnt have said what you did.
: hate? I actually like Philo, he don't talk to me, neither does Cor, but
: doesn't mean I gotta show them the same hate as they show me.
Gee,Why is it everyone you like somehow becomes a target? hehe
I really wish you liked yourself.. then maybe we'd all get some rest.
As for people not talking to you,.. Is thta really a surprise? no and
further So they dont talk to you that automatically means they hate you?
I hate you and I talk at you.
Its almost sad how confused you are.
almost.
Equa...@my-dejanews.com
tall...@irs.com (Tall Thin Jones) wrote:
> In fact, Equamour and that character who kills dogs are the only
> two I have known of for a while who have problems with their animals
> having sex with other humans, other than the safety issues.
Well, actually I have read things about people not liking others having sex
with their animals, and with me, Bud is like my human wife, I love her as
such, and I go by the human thing of sex with ones wife and not to share
them. MAYBE if I knew someone real well, and really cared for them, who
know, but I doubt it still.
amz1...@my-dejanews.com
pri...@irs.com (Pristan Etallion) wrote:
> TK wrote:
>
> ->First off, sexuality is not a religion.
>
> You mean that it is not one officially recognized by the council of churches
> or that sex cannot be a religion? If the latter than you have a rather
> myopic view. I hold Sunday morning brayer services religiously.
>
> PN
Religion refers to a specific system of belief revolving around a god or gods
(in most cases.) Sexuality is in this context, of or involving sex, which
usually refers to but is not limited to choice sexual partners and/or choice
of sexual activity. I suppose in some convoluted sense, there could be a
religion out there which involves sex in some way, but the term 'sexuality'
is used in an entirely different context.
I would hope and expect PN, that you would not be limit your brayer services
to Sunday mornings... :)
TK
Cor in Archenland
<6pp2la$t7k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>Religion refers to a specific system of belief revolving around a god or
gods
>(in most cases.) Sexuality is in this context, of or involving sex, which
>usually refers to but is not limited to choice sexual partners and/or
choice
>of sexual activity. I suppose in some convoluted sense, there could be a
>religion out there which involves sex in some way, but the term 'sexuality'
>is used in an entirely different context.
Rather more than one, and hardly requiring a 'convoluted sense'. Or does
Anthropology 101 not get into the religio-sexual activities of non-Judaic
cultures?
>I would hope and expect PN, that you would not be limit your brayer
services
>to Sunday mornings... :)
>
>TK
As he's already posted, more than once, his jacks' unwillingnes to forego
sexual activity, I think you needn't worry on that score.
Name withheld by request
> To be honest, I'd be pretty aghast if someone asked if they could have
> sex with any of my animals,
I share my animals with trusted friends. I don't believe that the monogomy
rule that most humankinds religions put within their institution called
marriage applies to zoosexuals however that is a matter of personal views
and convictions.
> On a different tack, what are the general views on neutering animals
> you're not sexually involved with? I'm presuming it would be better for
> my male dog to be neutered?
In the case of canines I would say "Yes" neuter or spay if you are not
going to allow that animal to have sexual release.
Bareback
Name withheld by request
> TK wrote:
> ->First off, sexuality is not a religion.
In alt.talk.bestiality Pristan Etallion <pri...@irs.com> wrote:
> You mean that it is not one officially recognized by the council of churches
> or that sex cannot be a religion?
I think that if there was no sex there would be no religion. Sex and
religion are sononomous. In some cases with a liberal view twards sex but
unfortunately in most cases severely restrictive to the point of being
oppressive.
> I hold Sunday morning brayer services religiously.
Yes. You have converted me to the "brayer" service and made me a zealot.
Bareback
Anonymous
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 30 Jul 1998 05:17:12 GMT, vic_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <6pgnoq$qfk$0...@dosa.alt.net>,
> ja...@nym.alias.net wrote:
>> Eagle wrote:
>>
>> > I would like to preface what I'm about to say thus: I have
>> >NOTHING personal against Dawg. I have no reason to suspect he
>> >has any alterior motivation in the zoophiles.net project.
>> >I do, however, want to bring some information to light...
>>
>> The question is, do you have any alterior movite to bring this
>> to light considering that he is your competition for the zoophile
>> web empire?
>
>Absolutely none. One of our resounding arguments all along against
>paranoid criticisms is that nobody else was trying to do anything.
>If the problems I mentioned had not arisen, we would have completed
>the linkage between our IRC servers. While admittedly we do maintain
>pride in our efforts, we won't be blinded by it ... and pride isn't
>a sin in my book.
Below was my answer to why I think your a liar.
On Sun, 26 Jul 1998 23:57:00 GMT, vic_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>Upon hearing this, Hawk and I immediately cancelled the link project.
>I urge caution to anyone considering getting an account with
>zoophiles.net ... you risk prosecution for exposing a minor to adult
>material if you put anything explicit on such an account.
Here is where I think your -alterior- motives show. You have stated
again and again that beasty pictures are legal to have available in
the USA. What difference does it make that it would be on
zoophile.net? None. The reason is simple. By your statement, the
equipment is not owned by bigdawg thus no different than putting
beasty porn or explicit materials on -any- webserver.
This also is a decent frame of reference to the "kilo" of coke in your
yugo. You have two choices.
1) admit that beasty porn is illegal and be a proven liar or..
2) Deny that it is illegal and prove that you are a liar and DO have
an alterior motive against Bigdawg.
Bird shit on your face no matter what you do.
>Hawk and I were both excited when we first talked with BigDawg about
>linking the servers. If anyone out there wants to do such a joint
>project ... and is NOT a minor and owns their own equipment, lines,
>etc. ... we would be happy to enter such a project.
Just remember that if you can't use dos ftp or AOL ftp, your a moron.
It has nothing to do with how Hawk sets up the ftp server. ;)
Is it any wonder they want a "link"?
They are looking for someone who knows what they are doing.
>Furthermore, if there was such motivation, I do not see what harm it
>would bring. I honestly do not know how "competition" will work
>out between zoophile.org and zoophiles.net. It will likely become
>similar to the competition between the talkers ... something between
>net and org. I invite the competition, it is the ONLY external
>influence other than supporters that will force us to improve
>ourselves.
In one paragraph you admit a motivation for an alterior motive AND
that you are inept at running zoophile.org.
>> Remember a kid named Bahumat? He had an account on your server
>> when he admited on his own web page that he was only 16. Even when
>> this fact was made publicly known on this newsgroup, you did not
>> terminate his account. Why?
>
>Unlike some people, I don't spend my every waking moment on the
>newsgroups. If someone wants to bring info to our attention, the most
>direct way is to e-mail us. If we had known there was a minor
>with a page on our server, we certainly would have removed it.
>We can't screen everyone with complete confidence though, no more
>than the post
Proof towards your inept management. The account was on your server
and you did not know what was on your own computers?
>Contrary to popular opinion, we did monitor the files on our server.
You have 2 choices.
1) Admit you did not know he was a minor because you did not monitor
pages and be proven a liar or..
2) Admit you DID know he was a minor because you DID monitor pages and
be proven a liar.
Either way there is more bird shit on your face.
>> > Granted, zoophile.org has had its problems; due to a number of
>> > problems, we have been offline for nearly two months due to a
>> > number of problems.
>> All of which are a result of gross incompetence and mismanagement
>> on your part.
>
>Since you demonstrate no efforts to run such a project yourself,
>financed solely by yourself, you have no proper frame of reference
>to make such a claim.
He knows better perhaps? Knows it is a stupid idea to draw attention
to himself?
Knows it is not a smart thing to do for one who may have his own
animals to worry about?
You don't need to be a plumber to know the toilet is plugged up
and what is backing up out of it sure ain't roses!
>> Why should zoophiles joyride in Dawg's stolen Ferarri, when they
>> can joyride in your Yugo with a kilo of cocaine loaded in the
>> trunk for later drug deals. Either way a zoophile is better off
>> purchasing his own transportation.
>
>No zoophile has such transportation, other than BigDawg and
>ourselves.
What -real- world zoophile would want to put a big red "shoot me"
target on their back or more importantly their animals?
Oh yea. you aren't one. Since you aren't one then why are you here?
>I do not know what your reference to a 'kilo of cocaine is'.
>I see no foundation for the claim that zoophile.org is in any way
>illegal. It is no more illegal than, say, furnation.com or
>sleepy.net or, for that matter, this newsgroup.
Because you had beasty porn dumbass! It is very illegal in this
country.The country you are in. None of the other websites you
try to relate yourself to have, nor have ever had beasty porn!
Not to mention your too clueless to know that this is not
a binaries group.
The -kilo- of coke reference was very fitting.
>I wonder how few people in the world haven't heard this rhetoric.
>The fact remains that other than BigDawg, no other zoos have
>made these efforts.
Most are too smart and care too much about their animals to
endanger them.
>We've had a lot of holier-than-thou critics such as yourself,
>but we've had a lot more supporters. I doubt you could rally
>as many critics as we had accounts on our server, which peaked
>at 109.
And how many were RWZ? None you say? Then why are you blabbing here?
>I can't make up anyone's mind for them. Our only goal is to give
>zoos voice in a forum other than this newsgroup whose members take
>pride in proclaiming anyone with contrary opinions are not welcome
>here.
Hmm..because this group wasn't made for the likes of you? Yes.
Try Zoowolf's group. Liars and inept beasty porn sysadmins are
probably welcome there.
>This newsgroup's "accepted" members accuse us of having alterior
>motives. I've answered many such accusations. I ask of those
>who make such accusations to honestly answer this: Is the real
>reason behind your anger toward us and other zoo Internet projects
>the fact that we are NOT under your control?
Accusations? No. Just statements of fact. But in answer to your
question..
No. I would have to say my anger is in your absolute cluelessness of
what a danger you are. Your ego and wish to be some much heralded
zoo "hero", Your posting to this newsgroup where you do not belong,
and your lies.
I would also have to agree with what James said in reply. You have an
anger of people here because your lies are not accepted and those
who wish to speak against you cannot be jailed or have their posts
wiped like your good little buddy Hunter did for you on sleepy's.
A_human that has sex with animals (yes that's right "bestiality")
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.5 for non-commercial use <http://www.nai.com>
iQA/AwUBNcB8U0qGPqsvHQLHEQKb9gCgi7rIxVSYPp8YiEZ7LCua3rlk7IIAnAyL
Tfg/CFZHvmk+PoF0yI+UgJ6Q
=zHBH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anonymous
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 28 Jul 1998 22:49:32 GMT, amz1...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:
>-=snipped for brevity-=
>*LONG POST*
>
>The main issue being what is welcome here on atb as well as what
constitutes
>appropriate behavior in this forum I ask why this group is not
moderated if
>its constituents afford Speedy such courtesy to decide what is and
what is
>not welcome here. Courtesy alone dicates our behavior here on atb.
The fact
>remains, this forum exists and the topic is bestiality. The
ramifications of
>these facts imparts different inferences to different people but as
wide a
>cross section that humanity is, one cannot expect an organized and
>respectable response to your calls for courtesy, without calling upon
some
>higher power of course. <---- just the painful simple *reality* of
the
>situation.
>
>On Psychology:
>
>
>> The resident former psychiatric patient on ATB takes the wind out
of your
>> argument.
>
>No, he is merely a counter example, as for my example, I know of such
a man
>irl, for him to walk into this forum where sex with animals is
discussed and
>be turned away because he has "issues" to me seems reprehensible. We
<grin>
>the enlightened (those who have no problem with engaging in animals
sexually)
>have a responsibility nay, a duty to provide support for such an
individual.
No we do not. That is your opinion.
>A matter of opinion of course on my part... Oh, and to provide
another
>example, what of those who are just coming into contact with animals
is it
>not also our duty to be supportive of them as well, to help them sort
out
>their own issues as they develop?
Nope. To stick your nose into their development is a bad idea.
They must come to terms with things on their own or they may start
blaming
us for their shortcomings. I.E. Equamour.
>(To counter balance the repressive
>elements in society which actively and agressively deny animals their
>sexuality) You may not feel the need to do this personally, but there
are
>others here who use this forum who might.
Then they would not be using this forum for its created purpose. Go
reclaim ASB or go to Zoowolfs group for that. Speedy made this group
for the RWZ.
If you want a group that fits your opinions then go make one.
>> If anyone in public memory fits the description of someone needing
>> to sort out the issues you describe in the above paragraph, it is
Equamour.
>> The presentation of his psychological problems on this group have
earned him
>>only grief, and he even stated in a post his "doctor" is
discouraging him from
>>participating in ATB as it agitates him.
>
>Are his problems centered around his problems with bestiality itself?
Or are
>they centered around problems that have arisen in his own life? He
has shown
>a predisposition time and time again to countermand attempts by
others to
>help him, in fact I have spoken with him over the phone a couple
times long
>ago... Talking with him was a scary experience, the topic shifted to
death
>and suicide very easily, the man talked about such things with a cold
and
>calm voice, and for all I was worth I could not get him admit certain
very
>basic concepts of human interaction.
My point about sticking your nose where it shouldn't be is proven by
your own words.
His problems are centered around bestiality to a degree but the rest
of them are thanks
to net psychiatrists such as you claim we have a duty to be.
>>In fact, even you have taken a pot shot or two at him. Shouldn't
you be
>>helping him by your -axiom- by engaging him in meaningful zoo to zoo
dialectic?
>
>His problems go beyond bestiality, into realms I dare not tread.
Those problems are amplified by people who are clueless trying to help
him
as you would have us do. I imagine you would say "well not equamour"
but how is a
person to tell who the next Equamour will be?
>>If someone needs help with sorting out mental health problems, this
is not the
>>place.
>
>----Unless those problems are related to bestiality, then it fits the
>alt.talk.bestiality title very well, don't you think?
>
Nope. Wanna create another Equamour?
>> As for social interactions between zoos and non zoo, or zoos and
zoos, and
>>what makes a zoo, those are issues concerning interacting with
humanity, not
>>animals...
>
>Let's see... to commit the act of bestiality you need an animal and a
>human... okay so the topic encompasses animals alone, humans alone,
humans
>and animals together, and all aspects of the act of sex itself. Care
for the
>animal is important (talk of fly repellents, and such) as are topics
>concerning care of the human (talk of 'My religion says all who
practice
>bestiality are going to hell, what do I do to reconcile this?') and
even
>topics concerning the mechanics of the act (talk of -'which is
better, KY or
>JLube?' or 'beware, when a mare orgasms make sure you are not wearing
your
>Sunday clothes
I believe RWZ was referring to zoo page advertisements and furry ilk
spreading their
fantasies. I believe the recent talk of fly repellants was good for it
encompassed "reality"
as it is today. Religion however is a grey area.
>>In your arguments, in the many sizes and
>>directions in which they have come, try to convince the reader that
the sex is
>>of diminishing importance.
>
>No, my axiom denotes that sex is not exclusively important, that is
all.
In this group it is all important. This group is for those who walk
the walk.
For those who do. Not for those who think they might want to or those
who are afraid to
or those who have a problem with it.
>>It is important, as it is primarily what "makes a zoo a zoo" as you
fondly put
>>it. With out sex with animals, then the zoo here is here without
valid cause.
>
>Okay RWZ, where does the desire to have sex with animals come into
play?
Those who don't? Those who fantasize about furry animals? Try ALF.
Or are you trying to say that we should listen to posts of people
looking for so and so in
*** area code?
This group is for those who do. Since you feel so strongly about there
being
a lack of resources for those who wish, then why not make your own
group?
>> There is no mystery. There is no pot of gold. There are no complex
Jungian,
>> Freudian, or any other psychological paradigms concerning
estiality/zoophilia.
>
>I am very happy that you are comfortable with your own sexuality. I
am
>disturbed by the possibility that you seem to refuse to accept that
others
>may not be so comfortable, or perhaps it's not acceptance so much as
not
>giving a fuck. It's your perogative, your choice, as much as it's
also my
>right to chose to care.
Then go care elsewhere. This is not social support zoophilia. Go see
if you can
ressurect that one. RWZ nor I are here to listen to people whine about
not being
happy with themselves cus they think bestiality might be wrong or
living in an apartment
that won't allow pets. That's a forest thing. Go there. You are
definitely their type.
>You may feel differently, but I believe that those who have made the
journey
>themselves have much to offer those on the other side, a perspective
on life
>and society, and if some chose this medium to offer that perspective
then it
>is their right.
Yes it is. But not here.
Quit trying to make this group another Forest or something -you- want
to see.
>The purpose of ATB:
>
>> The purpose of this group is to examine bestial topics as the FUQ
points out:
>> Walk like an animal, talk like an animal. Those that engage in
applying the
>> complex emotional, spiritual lauding of bestiality to themselves
and others
>> depart quickly from reality.
>
>Oh really? Let's remove the word 'complex' from your statement for a
>moment...(After alll the word is suject to a wide degree of
interpretations)
>I dont know about anyone else, but for me, sex often has an emotional
>context, in fact it is the power clarity and simplicity of the
thought and
>emotions that animals feel and communicate that I so relish in our
>interaction.
Remove complex and you change his meaning anyways. Nice try.
>>After all, animals can not communicate about such abstraction.
>
>Oh? Maybe not complex emotions (btw can you define a complex
emotion?) but
>certainly the dogs that I have connected with are very emotive and
>expressive. They know nothing of politics or zoophilia or even
perhaps love
>the way humans feel love, but even among humans complex emotions with
the
>same label are often different. I would bet your concept of love and
my own
>are much different for example.
What purpose did this paragraph have other than extending your already
long-winded
post and agreeing with RWZ?
>So then what about emotions are unreal? intrinsically unrealted to
bestiality
>and hence irrelavent here?
He said "complex" emotions. I will take a stab in the dark and say
something as to
anthropomorphize one's animals is what I took his meaning to be. That
is more of a
"furry" thing.
>> And as many have seen here on this news group and a.s.best, those
that place
>>human based explication and emotion above the base reality of the
act quickly
>>abandon the walk, which is the reality in which many here are based,
and don't
>>wish to leave.
>
>The walk being having sex with animals. So, because for me, sex has
an
>emotional context, my sexual activity with animals is not real or not
>bestiality? I should think not.
That is not what he said.
>There are many things which may lead others astray fromt he path of
'reality'
>which of course itself is not black and white but rather a continuum
or
>probablilty and preception based on the true nature of things. Faulty
logic,
>placing too much value on fantasy, emotions, lies, and cyberspace
just to
>name a few, placing all the blame on emotions itself is hardly
appropriate.
He hasn't done that.
>> > People can feign zoophilia and people can feign bestiality,
people can feign
>> > what ever they wish. It's so easy to do here on this medium of
words.
>>
>> Eventually though, their words will betray them, as yours have you.
>
>They betray me how exactly? You suggest I am a liar perhaps? :)
I will leave the direct answer for RWZ since it was posed to him. I
personally think
you are trying to make ATB to fit your perceptions of "what the
newsgroup should be."
Do you believe this to be fair in itself? If you do not like what ATB
was created for
then leave.
>> Some here see it as a very important responsibility.
>
>Your implication above "...as [your words] have betrayed you." seem
to
>suggest that you don't take this responsibility very seriously, and
to
>examine the point again, Questioning individuals and pointing out
fraudulent
>behavior is welcome here, simply to protect the masses by providing
insight
>into the nature of a given individual. Your concern here is for the
well
>being of those reading and participating in this group then? (or
certain
>folks) Why then is it so difficult to extend that concern to those
who you
>label Wannabes (those who have not had sex with animals but want to)
or to
>furryzoos (Zoos who are furry aswell.) Maybe you do and I just
misunderstand
>your words...
Because this group is not for them? Wannabe's are welcome to go to
zoowolfs group
and Furries have multiple groups to go to. RWZ's have here.
>Conclusions:
>
>> My argument through out has concerned its self with the moral right
and wrong
>>decision making influenced by sexual needs and sexuality as measured
by
>>external moral expectations of non zoo groups.
>
>"moral right and wrong decision making" is redundant... People use
this group
>for a majority of reasons, some of them may use the group because
they need to
>have sex with animals, others may use it for entertainment or
personal
>exploration, the motives behind the use of this newsgroup are in many
cases
>beyond the scope of what can adequately be determined by simply
reading a post
>and therefore quite hopeless to devine in an effort to police and
enforce your
>courtesy laws.
"laws" stated in the groups FUQ that you have so arduously tried to
change to fit
your perceptions of what "Alt.talk.bestiality" should be.
>I can say that sexuality is an intrinsic part of sexual morality (or
visa
>versa), and I can also say that my life choices indeed my moral
decisions are
>not exlusively or largely influenced by my sexuality.
In that I would have to say my life choices are indeed influenced by
my sexuality
quite greatly. My love for horses has had me make some tough choices
as time goes by.
I have had to shape my life to make it possible to first get and then
keep mine.
Because my horses are so important in my life it can be no other way.
>> An outsider, regardless of label, will have difficulty on one level
or another
>>understanding the -sex-. Outsiders can understand the erotic pull,
but often
>>balk when going beyond that concept, or shroud their erotic leaning
in
>>mysticism and other fantasy.
>
>Fine, but to exclude those who have accepted it and have things to
offer us
>goes beyond that feeling you have.
In this group? nope.
>> Problems arise when the sex gets real. Case and point is the thread
spawned by
>> Patroon two and a half years ago labeling zoo parties and other
activities the
>> manifestation of a sex club; a moral judgment based on observed
activities.
>
>I assume she would have had the same reaction towards a group of
humans
>getting together for sex in a semi random fashion as determined by
online
>exploits. bestiality itslef had little to do with it, it was more the
fact
>that people and animals were gathering for loose sexual interaction.
She was
>out of line perhaps in her judgement but I have other examples from
my own
>experience to back up your point...
So you agree? You agree Patroon was out of line and you say you have
more examples
to back up R.W.Z. 's argument.
>> Those rooted in reality consider the events and activities
described in her
>> diatribes to be -within- the moral constraints acceptable, as in
acts and
>> decisions, of zoo/bestiality behavior.
>
>I thought her beef was that the talkers were being used as a means
for people
>to get together and have sex...
Her beef was that people were having a "sex club" as one person
brought pictures
of stallion genitalia to the party which shocked her. Poor baby.
>> ....As a whole, does this make an individual *bad*? In general I
would
>> say no. What it does do however, is create the potential for them
to evaluate
>> me, and potentially harm me and my animals, as what I do is
something they do
>> not.
>
>There is a history of people being harmed by being outed or
discovered yes...
>but those things can be avoided here if you keep your name and your
anmials
>names and your general identity under wraps. What does this have to
do with
>exclusion and inclusion of discussion on this group? ....
It has to do with the inclusion or exclusion of certain types of
individuals.
Mentally unstable types come to mind. Equamour is a child compared to
what
we could actually have had yet you believe it is our duty to "help"
these types.
To play Psychologist.
>> ... Moreover, and the general push of this thread, is
>> someone not entirely of this orientation is morally suspect as they
do not
>> entirely respect or value my moral ideas that it is -right- for me
to have an
>> animal as my mate and lover, thus they may be *bad* for zoos
because of their
>> insecure moral beliefs about bestial sex.
>
>Your language "they do not entirely respect or value my moral
ideas... to
>have an animal as my... lover" allows no room for arguement. Is it
entirely
>beyond the realm of possibility that there are people out there who
a> are
>zoo and have not yet had contact with animals or b> have engaged with
animals
>sexually yet do not understand the moral implications?
A) Yes. but having no contact eliminates them from being RWZ and
inappropriate for this group. One of the main points of this whole
tired banter between you and R.W.Z.
B) Not understanding the "moral implications" would be a lack a note
of "reality" and thus also eliminate them from being RWZ and therefore
inappropriate for this group.
>Are those people
>still morally suspect? Perhaps yes but they deserver the room to
discover who
>they are, and the support from those around them to help them along
the way.
>(opinion of course)
Yes. Yes they do, but -not- here.
How often must you be told the purpose of the group?
You are obviously not listening and do not care to listen.
I consider your attempts to make way for "wannabe's" in this newsgroup
rude.
>> Btw, do you have any animals in your life? In your example that
follows, the
>> key words are -can be-. The key word in this group is -are-.
>
>Yes, what do you think my parents were so upset about? To divulge
more would
>be perhaps endagering to the stability of the current "understanding"
we have
>reached.
A reached understanding has the sound of "My parents have the animal."
Is he/she really part of your life then? The connection seems -very-
tenuous.
>> While your perspective of buy every slightly zoo inclined
individual a coke
>>and invite them into the group to get in touch with their feelings
is grand, it
>>is unrealistic and potentially dangerous.
>
>In spite of your claims it has happened and is happening and will
continue to
>happen. You are free to choose to buy them a coke or shot them witha
shot
>gun, but dont be suprised if I point out to you that the shot gun is
a bit
>extreme.
It happens but will never be welcomed here and is quite "rude" to go
against
the FUQ in such a direct manner. RWZ's have nowhere else.
Allow them their own group.
>> > Btw, your last word up there does not seem to fit the list as it
is an
>> internal
>> > phen omena not an external force.
>>
>> That is incorrect. It is an "external force."
>
>Sexual choice is an internal matter. "Family, friends, politics,
money,
>education, religion" are external entities and in a sense so are the
sexual
>labels we tend to use on others. Sexuality itself (like religion, or
more
>like spirituality I suppose) in an internal choice, not an external
>phenomena.
Now you use religion as a comparison to sexuality yet not even a
day ago you wrote.
>> Can a person be a christian and jewish?
>
>First off, sexuality is not a religion. A man has a right to have
dreams and
>fantasies, and if he keeps them in the proper context, they will not
interefer
>with ones real life interactions. Simple, aint it?
Would this classify you as a "hypocrite"?
>>If no one possessed "the stateor quality of being sexual" then no
one would
>>learn about sex.
>
>The choices one makes sexually are of a different factor than the
choices one
>makes of politics. For me personally, my sexual choices in terms of
partners
>were not dictated by what I learned about sex. I did my own
learnin...
Yet you feel that some need "help" ? Perhaps you don't give them
enough credit.
>>The rest happens within the brain as a matter of sensory input. Sex
is
>>learned. Attitudes about sex are learned.
>
>One fights the spirit if one sets out to learn a specific sexuality.
"Today
>I am going to fuck animals, tomorrow I will be homosexual, and
thursdat I
>think I will go back to beaver..." Sexuality in its natural state is
not a
concious decision, sex itself is (or should be.)
Yet many of these "wannabes" do just that.
>> At what point do those who really value their life style cease
regarding
>> everyone as a potential friend,
>
>Never did I assert that everyone should be regarded as a friend, just
that
>everyone should not be regarded as an enemy.
But they should be regarded with extreme caution.
>>I'm not ready to be crucified at the hands of someone who I thought
was a
>>friend, and held the same or similar set of morals regarding
sexuality. You
>>say it has little to do with it. I say it hasa great deal to do
with it.
>>
>> R.W.Z
>
>There is no danger of you being crucified if you are careful with
your
>personal information. Here in this innocent medium we can engage one
another
>and be supportive of those in need.
If they walk the walk and talk the talk then it may be on topic.
>TK (forgive spelling errors, this post has already taken up too much
of my
>time)
Then shorten them.
A_human that has sex with animals
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.5 for non-commercial use <http://www.nai.com>
iQA/AwUBNcCHrEqGPqsvHQLHEQI3OACg8F7W9sG3LBEK/m/1lLxMEZuwPcwAn04N
mf4RmAkw1/B9N1DVS2cLq+uO
=9Szh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tall Thin Jones
Am> First off, sexuality is not a religion. A man has a right to have
Am> dreams and fantasies, and if he keeps them in the proper context, they
Am> will not interefer with ones real life interactions. Simple, aint it?
No, it ain't. Define "proper context."
Pristan Etallion
->>>A quick note to point out a glaring blunder here...
My point exactly.
->>>First off, sexuality is not a religion.
->>
->>You mean that it is not one officially recognized by the council of churches
->>or that sex cannot be a religion? If the latter than you have a rather
->>myopic view. I hold Sunday morning brayer services religiously.
->
->Religion refers to a specific system of belief revolving around a god or gods
->(in most cases.)
You mean in most cases recognized by the council of churches since in the
history of Man, religion is more properly defined as "a belief system."
->Sexuality is in this context, of or involving sex,
Sexuality, in any context, is about sex, n'est pas?
->I suppose in some convoluted sense, there could be a religion out there
->which involves sex in some way, but the term 'sexuality'
->is used in an entirely different context.
I disagree with your differing context fluff.
I suppose there could be quite a few, and certainly have been quite
a few. The Temple of Mendes comes to mind for some reason. Worshipers
there had sex with goats. While I don't normally care for religious
fanatics, I would make an exception in their case.
I reitierate that you have a myopic view of religion. Maybe when you
are older and better educated you won't be so narrow viewed in your
Judeo-Christian mindset.
->I would hope and expect PN, that you would not be limit your brayer
->services to Sunday mornings.
Of course not. There's Wednesday night "covered" dish dinner. Friday
night is BINGO night! (Big Inches Naturally Going Off) And those
are just some of the regularly scheduled events. It is natural
whenever the occasion arises to kneel down and bray.
PN
--
We are now again in an epoch of wars of religion, but a religion is
now called an "ideology."
(Bertrand Russell)
Anonymous
<snipped for greater brevity>
> We <grin>
> the enlightened (those who have no problem with engaging in animals sexually)
> have a responsibility nay, a duty to provide support for such an individual.
> A matter of opinion of course on my part... Oh, and to provide another
> example, what of those who are just coming into contact with animals is it
> not also our duty to be supportive of them as well, to help them sort out
> their own issues as they develop? (To counter balance the repressive
> elements in society which actively and agressively deny animals their
> sexuality)
I ask who is "We" as it appears you are speaking for many, rather than yourself. I
did not receive any "guidance" from other zoos, nor did many of the older (by age)
zoos that I know, unless you were one of the few people to be lucky enough to know a
local animal fucker. I ask that it be remembered that the net has had a relatively
young in comparison to the number of years that bestiality has been practiced. Of
the RWZ's I will ask that it be put to the vote:
Were you helped or "enlightened" to the ways of bestiality?
[ ] No. <-- My answer.
[ ] Yes.Do you feel a responsibility or duty to provide such support for other
potential animal fuckers?
[ ] No. <-- My answer.
[ ] Yes.
To put this into perspective: I found my attraction for horses by myself. I
developed relationships with them by myself. I engaged in coitus with horses by
myself. I came to terms with my bestiality by myself. Not only that, the word
bestiality was my only companion for my actions for 18 years. Because of this, I
know truly that my actions of bestiality, are truly sourced within me. This is part
of what gives me the self confidence in my choices in my life, and make me conclude
that I am happy with those choices I have made. People must develop this upon their
own, otherwise, they will always hold a doubt that this is truly what they want
rather than they are doing it for the friendship of others or approval of a mentor.
They will suffer in self confidence from the charitable help of people "helping and
guiding them".
I will ask what right a person has to determine the choices of this nature of
another person? Is that what guidance is? If you are talking the assistance in the
physical act, are you talking about starting a bordello of animals for the curious
to try? Or are you talking about assistance of the physical act of coitus? Or are
you talking about "helping" them sort their feelings out? I know I would not be
comfortable about telling what another person is feeling.
Now I will point out the big picture. How will the public see a person's "guidance"
about another's zoophilia? Will they point fingers and say "you recruited my boy
into your perverted ways"? Or how about "you have corrupted his morals"? Are you
getting the idea? I ask what your own parents would have said, TK, if in standing up
for you sexuality against them, you had told them "But Bob here is my mentor. He has
shown me all the proper ways to boff my animals, and helped me get my mind straight
on things". I think the only thing it would have done, is shift the blame from you
to poor Bob, and your parents would have been more convinced that you needed to be
"cured" of this corruption, as it would have been sourced from without instead of
within you.
How will you decide who is worthy of such guidance? Anyone that comes forward and
says "I am curious, show me how?" How many of these "interested in a dog in xxx
area" ads have you answered so that you may guide them to the ways of bestiality?
I do not condone such actions as I feel that would it would be more harmful than
productive in the long run.
>You may not feel the need to do this personally, but there are others who use this
>forum who might.
It would not be appropriate for this forum to be used in this fashion. Maybe another
newsgroup like alt.support.bestiality would be appropriate, although I do not think
it exists.
amz1...@my-dejanews.com
> gods
> >usually refers to but is not limited to choice sexual partners and/or
> choice
> >religion out there which involves sex in some way, but the term 'sexuality'
> >is used in an entirely different context.
>
> Anthropology 101 not get into the religio-sexual activities of non-Judaic
> cultures?
I never took Anthro 101, so I can't help you there. My studies in
anthropology were mainly dedicated to indigenous cultures of the Americas. I
only barely scratched the surface in that area as you can well imagine.
So there are a number of religions out there that have sex as a part of their
doctrine. Which ones, and where? What about sexuality, is there a religion
out there centered around a specific sexuality?
Actually it hardly matters...
> Cor in Archenland
>
> "I think *true* happiness can only be found in the wanton indulgence of
> animals." Hobbes.
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Pristan Etallion
->Of the RWZ's I will ask that it be put to the vote:
->
->Were you helped or "enlightened" to the ways of bestiality?
->[ ] No. <-- My answer.
->[ ] Yes.
->Do you feel a responsibility or duty to provide such support for other
->potential animal fuckers?
->[ ] No. <-- My answer.
->[ ] Yes.
My answers, obviously, are the same as the ones to the two questions
asked at the airport, which is to say the same as what Sam told Tabitha
when she wiggled her nose.
->Now I will point out the big picture. How will the public see a person's
->"guidance" about another's zoophilia? Will they point fingers and say
->"you recruited my boy into your perverted ways"? Or how about "you have
->corrupted his morals"? Are you getting the idea? I ask what your own parents
->would have said, TK, if in standing up for you sexuality against them, you
->had told them "But Bob here is my mentor.
Ooooh. Getting rather close to the belt now!
Hi Jim!, err I mean, Arf!
->It would not be appropriate for this forum to be used in this fashion. Maybe
->another newsgroup like alt.support.bestiality would be appropriate, although
->I do not think it exists.
I think alt.support.zoophools would be much more appropriate.
Anyone second the motion?
PN
--
Wisdom consists not so much in knowing what to do in the ultimate as
in knowing what to do next.
(Herbert Hoover)
Anonymous
Hash: SHA1
amz1...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>
> You are right, one paticular person's behavior sparked the whole thing for
> me. He was acting in a way that I had seen others act before here on atb. He
> had called off what seemed like a close friendship to me for, among other
> reasons, the fact that I was going out with someone who he considered to be a
> wannabe. Thus, the label thread. I was angry that such bullshit was around
> and wanted to seek out the source, it's not what I expected actually.
Except such isn't BS. Your focus throughout your history on the net is the
pursuit of
a human lover. The animals come second in your book, thus all the philosophical
caterwauling that has rained upon this group. You are angry your friend called a
spade a spade, and the truth often hurts. If your would be date or lover had
four legs, perhaps your teat wouldn't be in such a wringer.
What does this mean?
It means once again those that have not do not understand or respect those that
have.
And the focus of this group is those who "are" and what they "have", not those
who "can be" and wish and "want."
> My but I do love these short and sweet posts, no philosophical Bs to sift
> through, quite refreshing...
> TK
I'm glad my time was not wasted, asshole.
R.W.Z.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNcMWgkjuxwPFShrOEQIjswCgh5DIZAZmG/8ES3wiQ14TML0JWZkAoPSN
iIM8lT6ZoiSzyRTwyyhIqHJw
=x5pj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anonymous
after they e-mailed threats to two animal right's activists;
How to research the dejanews archives for information and evidence on illegal activities by
the owners of zoophile org, a domain devoted to promoting sex with animals and offering anonymous internet accounts and web sites to people who sexually abuse animals. This information is in general however applicable for any such searching on this archive;
Instructions:
1. Web browser it to http://www.dejanews.com
2. This will be the main search page, look for the 'Power search' link and select this.
3. You will see a search page to enter information into a number of boxes for the search, select the following boxes and enter the following information;
Search for; hawk, eagle, +porn
Limit Search box:
Match; all
Subject; (leave blank)
Forum; alt.talk.bestiality
Author: (leave blank)
Date: jan 1 1997 mar1 1998
Archive: (Select 'complete')
Results per page; 100
Sort by: (leave as is)
Results format: (leave as is)
Now hit search and about 10 posts come up, scroll down the page
and see the 'search again-power search' box again.
Remove the hawk, eagle, +porn search term you had in the
'search for' box, put just a wild card; * there, scroll down a bit and where it says;
'Subject(s)' add this exactly; hawk, eagle, +porn and hit search, also try going back and just replace
hawk, eagle, +porn with hawk, eagle, +zoophile.org
You will find 103, 105 and 127 indexed postings regarding this server.
Some of the more interesting posts are subject lined with ' federal trouble'
and at least one is subject lined with this subject, and here is the posting in brief, and it shows clearly that there is illegal activity going on;
Subject: Eagle is selling Zoo/Beasty porn CDs to finance web server
From: nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: 1998/02/21
Message-ID: <1998022117...@basement.replay.com>
Newsgroups: alt.talk.bestiality
Recently two supposed Zoos, Hawk and Eagle, have started a zoo based
web server to "help" the community by providing web
space free of charge. While their intentions may be
noble in origin, I want to point out the road to
hell is often paved with good and noble intentions.
In Eagle's most recent news letter, Eagle Eyes Fall/Winter
addition, he clearly states that the offering for sale of zoo/bestiality
porn CDs will finance their web server. I don't
know about you folks, but that sounds like BIG
trouble for them and their clients. It is a severe
federal offence to transport porn of this type through
the mails, or even offer it for sale in such form.
Anyone considering using space on their server may want to
very seriously question the competancy of the management
supporting the server. I would be reluctant to even
browse their site at this point.
This is the portion of Eagle's News Letter stating
the intentions regarding the porn:
"All over the web, zoophiles' webpages have vanished because their hosts disapproved of zoo content, or because they consume too
much bandwidth (bandwidth is the amount of data that can be moved at one time). Even Stasya's webpage, considered by some as
a cornerstone of the zoophile web community, vanished because it consumed too much bandwidth.
The need for a non-commercial web server owned and operated by zoophiles for zoophiles became quite clear. At long last, such a
web server came online.
Several months in the making, www.zoophile.org is a major effort put forth by Hawk to provide free unlimited webspace for zoophiles, with full FTP access for each user to their own directory. Before the server even "officially" went online and gained a static
IP, 20 users had their webpages in place upon it (including myself). On February 19, the server finally officially went online. Although the server was placed on a full ISDN line, anonymous FTP access to zoo porn pictures had to be disabled to conserve bandwidth
for the explected flood of hits. CD-Rs of every picture on the FTP site including a significant number of newly-acquired pictures and movies are offered in place of anonymous FTP access, for sale at $50 each. Although the price is steep compared to the usual charge of nothing, it is meant to serve as funding for the http server (which is to remain free).
Of course, the server is not free to those who run it. All in all, going online with an ISDN line cost $2,000 initially and roughly $300 per month to maintain. Myself and Hawk are splitting the costs, and are hoping people will buy the CD's to offset it. Regardless, the
webpages will remain free.
Information about getting your own zoophile webpage may be obtained by visiting the website at http://www.zoophile.org or by e-mailing the server owner and administrator."
--
______________________________________________________
Get Your Free, Private Email at http://www.nightmail.com
amz1...@my-dejanews.com
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> amz1...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > You are right, one paticular person's behavior sparked the whole thing for
> > me. He was acting in a way that I had seen others act before here on atb.
He
> > had called off what seemed like a close friendship to me for, among other
> > reasons, the fact that I was going out with someone who he considered to be
a
> > wannabe. Thus, the label thread. I was angry that such bullshit was around
> > and wanted to seek out the source, it's not what I expected actually.
>
> Except such isn't BS. Your focus throughout your history on the net is the
> pursuit of a human lover.
I still have had, and have animals in my life... My focus has been contacting
people through the net.. animals certainly can use CPUs
>The animals come second in your book, thus all the philosophical
> caterwauling that has rained upon this group.
Animals and Humans come second in my book bub. First things first, and that;s
to get a degree and a place set up for myself.
>You are angry your friend called a
> spade a spade, and the truth often hurts.
No, losing a friendship that had been built over the course of 3 years, and a
dog that I had known for 2 hurt. All for someone's pride and hasty thinking,
borderline bigotry... perhaps he was a bit posessive of me too, I have no way
of knowing, I cannot read minds, but him hanging the dog over my head using
him to get at me was quite low.
<snip>
> What does this mean?
>
> It means once again those that have not do not understand or respect those
> that have.
Wrong, but you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, as it doesn't affect me
one bit. (aside from puzzlement and anger) What I have no respect for is
bullshit, hastey thinging and anger that is simply there for anger's sake.
> > My but I do love these short and sweet posts, no philosophical Bs to sift
> > through, quite refreshing...
> > TK
>
> I'm glad my time was not wasted, asshole.
You know where to go... TKO
> R.W.Z.
Pristan Etallion
->So there are a number of religions out there that have sex as a part of their
->doctrine. Which ones, and where? What about sexuality, is there a religion
->out there centered around a specific sexuality?
->
->Actually it hardly matters...
Then why do you bring it up?
Oh, that's right... personal squabbles.
PN
--
Optimism is the folly of maintaining that everything is all right when
we are wretched.
(Voltaire)
Pristan Etallion
->Dreams and fantasies are for when you are asleep, or for when you want to
->divert your attention from reality. (watching TV, playing videogames, TSing
->of furrymuch (shudder), or imagining oneself as rich as Bill Gates)--all a
You mean like a truck driving phool exclaims here that he is going
to buy Microsoft?
<snork!>
PN
--
Our duty is to be useful, not according to our desires but according
to our powers.
(Amiel)
Anonymous
Hash: SHA1
amz1...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > Except such isn't BS. Your focus throughout your history on the net is the
> > pursuit of a human lover.
> I still have had, and have animals in my life... My focus has been contacting
> people through the net.. animals certainly can use CPUs
I didn't say you did not have animals in your life, or even that you do or do
not have sex with them. That is your read on what I wrote. My point is you do
not chose an animal as your lover, but rather humans. You stated animals are
capable of complex emotion, then why the gravitation to nearly hairless bipeds?
Something lacking? The animal just a cheap fuck not capable of meeting your
needs for intimacy? Maybe your friend was pissed off because of the regard you
"really" hold for animals despite all your posturing. Obviously something is not
entirely on the level.
> >The animals come second in your book, thus all the philosophical
> > caterwauling that has rained upon this group.
> Animals and Humans come second in my book bub. First things first, and that;s
> to get a degree and a place set up for myself.
Was my meaning that obscure?
> >You are angry your friend called a
> > spade a spade, and the truth often hurts.
>
> No, losing a friendship that had been built over the course of 3 years, and a
> dog that I had known for 2 hurt. All for someone's pride and hasty thinking,
> borderline bigotry... perhaps he was a bit posessive of me too, I have no way
> of knowing, I cannot read minds, but him hanging the dog over my head using
> him to get at me was quite low.
It would be interesting to hear what he has to say. Perhaps he saw something
else all together different about your actions and their consequences. Why would
a long time friend suddenly turn on you? It doesn't make sense.
> <snip>
>
> > What does this mean?
> >
> > It means once again those that have not do not understand or respect those
> > that have.
>
> Wrong, but you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, as it doesn't affect me
> one bit. (aside from puzzlement and anger) What I have no respect for is
> bullshit, hastey thinging and anger that is simply there for anger's sake.
My summation was not meant to affect you, just sum up your attitude. It is quite
clear where your priorities lay.
> > > My but I do love these short and sweet posts, no philosophical Bs to sift
> > > through, quite refreshing...
> > > TK
> >
> > I'm glad my time was not wasted, asshole.
>
> You know where to go... TKO
Yeah, not to spend my time engaging in debate with you. Your comprehension
sucks, as well as your technique, and moreover, if you consider it BS, why
should me or anyone engage you? You yourself stated the purpose of the
"dialectic" was to sort such issues out, but you are quick to abandon the
validity of such.
You also stated (from <6nuupb$k52$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>) "Call a spade a spade,
save the sarcasm for those that deserve it, those for whome reason and discourse
have no effect, at least that way, you can have fun while you are arguing them
into the ground."
I think that be excellent advice. I think I will take it a bit more to heart.
Perhaps your friend who rejected you has too. :)
Another interesting quote worth noting: (from <6nuupb$k52$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>)
"There are people out there who because of circumstances have not had "access"
to animals on a regular enough basis to 'connect' with them, yet still feel
as though they belong."
But do they really? Are their peceptions really worth the time of someone
experienced and dedicated to this method of sexual expression reading this
group? If you must mentor "disadvantaged" zoos, then do it out side of this
"news" group, TK.
R.W.Z.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNcOuu0juxwPFShrOEQIj+QCdEtapD4V//a7WfjtZbEGPQRMOslcAoJnv
FEmO1CpNm3dFNKLdN55VjaSC
=Ebj+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
amz1...@my-dejanews.com
hand , forces his fantasies into reality when he interprets events and words
but on the other hand as a real world zoo, he says he has a great deal of
respect for reality.
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:000
> amz1...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > Except such isn't BS. Your focus throughout your history on the net is the
> > > pursuit of a human lover.
>
> > I still have had, and have animals in my life... My focus has been
contacting
> > people through the net.. animals certainly can use CPUs
>
> I didn't say you did not have animals in your life, or even that you do or do
> not have sex with them. That is your read on what I wrote. My point is you do
> not chose an animal as your lover, but rather humans.
How do you know what I chose as my lover then? I like both, they each have
something to offer that is unique and wonderful unto itself, how can you have
the information to suppose that I prefer humans?
And here's where you supplant your fantasies into your interpretation...
You said "such isn't BS".... was this referring to what I was angry at. That
being, hasty judgements and bigotry based on what someone percieves of
someone elses sex life. It is bullshit... he has never met my bf irl, and
only through scant online interaction came to the conclusion that he was a
wannabe... and furthermore that he would molest dogs he would come into
contact with (one of the excuses he used when he sent me "the" .smail.)
Seems there's a group of people out there (you being one of them RWZ) who
love to supplant their version of reality onto others with little or no
information about the truth, as you have done here. You have stated that he
called a spade a spade, that he was accurate in his judgement. How can you
even begin to realistically give a true statement in this regard. You have
detached yourself from reality there, as I am sure you have done in the past
and will continue to do in the future.
> You stated animals are capable of complex emotion,
Here we go again... look at that little word complex... and then go back to
my posts - I dare you to quote it.... What I really said was that they are
capable of emotion. (wouldnt it be nice if you could be accurate and
truthful?)
>then why the gravitation to nearly hairless bipeds?
There are things humans can offer that animals cannot. You cannot share music
with a dog, or one's appreciation of poetry or countless other things. I said
before, that what draws me to animals is the pure and powerful emotions that
they are able to somehow clearly and honestly communicate far better than any
human I have run across.
> Something lacking? The animal just a cheap fuck not capable of meeting your
> needs for intimacy?
Trying to supplant reality on me again mr realworldzoo?
> Maybe your friend was pissed off because of the regard you "really" hold for
> animals despite all your posturing. Obviously something is not entirely on the
> level.
Perhaps we all should let the sleeping beast lay... RWZ, there's a lot of pain
on all sides of the issue, and I for one do not want to drag he or myself
through it again for your own twisted gratification. To be sure, it is
convoluted and complex, he would say that my behavior betrayed the friendship.
(and the lengthy arguement begins there)
> > >The animals come second in your book, thus all the philosophical
> > > caterwauling that has rained upon this group.
>
> > Animals and Humans come second in my book bub. First things first, and
> > that;s to get a degree and a place set up for myself.
>
> Was my meaning that obscure?
It was lost in your suppositions and that smoke rising from your head.
> > >You are angry your friend called a
> > > spade a spade, and the truth often hurts.
> >
> > No, losing a friendship that had been built over the course of 3 years, and
a
> > dog that I had known for 2 hurt. All for someone's pride and hasty
thinking,
> > borderline bigotry... perhaps he was a bit posessive of me too, I have no
way
> > of knowing, I cannot read minds, but him hanging the dog over my head using
> > him to get at me was quite low.
>
> It would be interesting to hear what he has to say. Perhaps he saw something
> else all together different about your actions and their consequences. Why
would
> a long time friend suddenly turn on you? It doesn't make sense.
Nope, makes no sense, but it's a pattern I have seen him take before on other
matters. There's no need to even bring it up again, let the sleeping beast
lay. In fact though I think it has something to do with the pattern of
behavior that you seem to be displaying now RWZ, supplanting realities.
> > <snip>
> >
> > > What does this mean?
> > >
> > > It means once again those that have not do not understand or respect those
> > > that have.
> >
> > Wrong, but you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, as it doesn't affect
me
> > one bit. (aside from puzzlement and anger) What I have no respect for is
> > bullshit, hastey thinging and anger that is simply there for anger's sake.
>
> My summation was not meant to affect you, just sum up your attitude. It is
> quite clear where your priorities lay.
Absolutely- here on this group, to explore the twisted attitude you so
vigorously display, for my own edification as to why what happened happened,
in the broader spectrum of life, first things first....
> > > > My but I do love these short and sweet posts, no philosophical Bs to
sift
> > > > through, quite refreshing...
> > > > TK
> > >
> > > I'm glad my time was not wasted, asshole.
> >
> > You know where to go... TKO
>
> Yeah, not to spend my time engaging in debate with you.
(actually I had another place in mind but that would do)
Yet you seem to have spent an appreciable amount of time engaging my words and
venting your frustrations...
> Your comprehension
> sucks, as well as your technique, and moreover, if you consider it BS, why
> should me or anyone engage you? You yourself stated the purpose of the
> "dialectic" was to sort such issues out, but you are quick to abandon the
> validity of such.
As far as I was concerned the vast majority of issues were straightened out
and I was perfectly content to let the discussion drop, but no, it must be
dragged on further. -wonderful
> You also stated (from <6nuupb$k52$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>) "Call a spade a
>spade, save the sarcasm for those that deserve it, those for whome reason and
>discourse have no effect, at least that way, you can have fun while you are
>arguing them into the ground."
>
> I think that be excellent advice. I think I will take it a bit more to heart.
> Perhaps your friend who rejected you has too. :)
I certainly hope so too, I hope he has the courage to see who he really is
when he looks at himself in that mirror of his.
> Another interesting quote worth noting: (from
<6nuupb$k52$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>)
>
> "There are people out there who because of circumstances have not had "access"
> to animals on a regular enough basis to 'connect' with them, yet still feel
> as though they belong."
>
> But do they really? Are their peceptions really worth the time of someone
> experienced and dedicated to this method of sexual expression reading this
> group? If you must mentor "disadvantaged" zoos, then do it out side of this
> "news" group, TK.
>
> R.W.Z.
A piece of advice, keep your nose in your own business, and take a good honest
look at how you judge folks and supplant you little fantasies on them. If you
to take that honest look, you might well be surprised at what you see in that
mirror of yours.
TK
Samson
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 02 Aug 1998 11:39:27 GMT, amz1...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>Here we have a prime example of a person with a double standard. He
>on one hand , forces his fantasies into reality when he interprets
>events and words but on the other hand as a real world zoo, he says
>he has a great deal of respect for reality.
A double standard? How so?
You are merely upset because he has forced you to get to
the heart of this matter and that is.."I want people to accept
my new human Bf here even tho he is a "wannabe" by The standards
set forth by speedy and "Now that I have a human Bf I want the dog
here where I couldn't seem to have him before."
> Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:000
>> amz1...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> > > Except such isn't BS. Your focus throughout your history on the
>> > > net is the pursuit of a human lover.
>>
>> > I still have had, and have animals in my life... My focus has
>> > been contacting people through the net.. animals certainly can
use
>> > CPUs
>>
>> I didn't say you did not have animals in your life, or even that
>> you do or do not have sex with them. That is your read on what
>> I wrote. My point is you do not chose an animal as your lover,
>> but rather humans.
>
>How do you know what I chose as my lover then?
>I like both, they each have something to offer
>that is unique and wonderful unto itself, how can you have
>the information to suppose that I prefer humans?
Which will be living with you right now? The human.
Which have you chosen to live with in the past? The human.
His words ring true.
When has your dog lived with you?
Not any time in recent history.
>And here's where you supplant your fantasies into your
>interpretation...
>
>You said "such isn't BS".... was this referring to what I was angry
>at. That being, hasty judgements and bigotry based on what someone
>percieves of someone elses sex life. It is bullshit... he has never
>met my bf irl, and only through scant online interaction came to the
>conclusion that he was a wannabe... and furthermore that he would
molest
>dogs he would come into contact with (one of the excuses he used when
>he sent me "the" .smail.)
Ok lets get this straight..another person is taking care of
your dog for 2 years. You get a new human mate and immediately
wish to take the dog away from his old home. The person who has
been caring for him, and paying for him (?) has a right to be
suspicious and worried for the dogs health.
What is different that you can have him now?
If you could always have him then why did you wait 2 years and
a new human Bf later?
As for what was percieved of your new bf I cannot say his
estimate was off the mark. Text is what we have to go on here.
Your bf talks like a wannabe.
>Seems there's a group of people out there (you being one of them RWZ)
>who love to supplant their version of reality onto others with little
>or no information about the truth, as you have done here. You have
>stated that he called a spade a spade, that he was accurate in his
>judgement. How can you even begin to realistically give a true
>statement in this regard.
- From your own posts of course. You have brought your business and the
business of a few others to this group in your posts. All that he
needs
to know of your choices past and present can be read from the dejanews
archives of ATB and ASB.
<snip>
>>then why the gravitation to nearly hairless bipeds?
>
>There are things humans can offer that animals cannot. You cannot
>share music with a dog, or one's appreciation of poetry or countless
>other things. I said before, that what draws me to animals is the
pure
>and powerful emotions that they are able to somehow clearly and
honestly
>communicate far better than any human I have run across.
However you have spent most of your time getting human mates
rather than working to have a place for you and your animal mate.
This is what RWZ is saying. This is fact, not a made up version of
reality.
>> Something lacking? The animal just a cheap fuck not capable of
>> meeting your needs for intimacy?
>
>Trying to supplant reality on me again mr realworldzoo?
Or has he hit bone and it hurts to admit?
>> Maybe your friend was pissed off because of the regard you "really"
>> hold for animals despite all your posturing. Obviously something
>> is not entirely on the level.
>
>Perhaps we all should let the sleeping beast lay... RWZ, there's a
>lot of pain on all sides of the issue, and I for one do not want
>to drag he or myself through it again for your own twisted
gratification.
>To be sure, it is convoluted and complex, he would say that my
behavior
>betrayed the friendship.
>(and the lengthy arguement begins there)
You have brought it here. Why? The truth shows itself now. You came
here and started these threads because you know this is one place you
can get his attention. ATB became your battlefront because the talkers
wouldn't have that bs. It is you who wouldn't let sleeping dogs lay.
>> > >The animals come second in your book, thus all the philosophical
>> > > caterwauling that has rained upon this group.
>>
>> > Animals and Humans come second in my book bub. First things
>> > first, and that;s to get a degree and a place set up for myself.
>>
>> Was my meaning that obscure?
>
>It was lost in your suppositions and that smoke rising from your
>head.
What are you really fighting for? To get the dog back or to get
people to accept your new bf? I don't see you putting as much
effort into the animal as you are the human.
RWZ's words ring true again.
>> > >You are angry your friend called a
>> > > spade a spade, and the truth often hurts.
>> >
>> > No, losing a friendship that had been built over the course of 3
>> > years, and a dog that I had known for 2 hurt. All for someone's
>> > pride and hasty thinking, borderline bigotry... perhaps he was
>> > a bit posessive of me too, I have no way of knowing, I cannot
read
>> > minds, but him hanging the dog over my head using him to get at
me
>> > was quite low.
>>
>> It would be interesting to hear what he has to say. Perhaps he saw
>> something else all together different about your actions and their
>> consequences. Why would a long time friend suddenly turn on you?
>> It doesn't make sense.
>
>Nope, makes no sense, but it's a pattern I have seen him take before
>on other matters. There's no need to even bring it up again, let
>the sleeping beast lay. In fact though I think it has something to
>do with the pattern of behavior that you seem to be displaying now
RWZ,
>supplanting realities.
Him hanging the dog over your head? No. You used him as a kennel for 2
years and now the bill is due.
<snip>
>> > You know where to go... TKO
>>
>> Yeah, not to spend my time engaging in debate with you.
>
>(actually I had another place in mind but that would do)
>Yet you seem to have spent an appreciable amount of time engaging my
>words and venting your frustrations...
Perhaps he felt that you had started a good thread only to find out
the motivation behind it was a self-centered desire to get this group
to accept your new human bf.
It would upset me to find I had spent all that time bantering
with you and that you had no intention of listening to a word I wrote.
Talking to a brick wall.
>> Your comprehension
>> sucks, as well as your technique, and moreover, if you consider it
>> BS, why should me or anyone engage you? You yourself stated the
>> purpose of the "dialectic" was to sort such issues out, but you are
>> quick to abandon the validity of such.
>
>As far as I was concerned the vast majority of issues were
>straightened out and I was perfectly content to let the discussion
drop,
>but no, it must be dragged on further. -wonderful
All encompassing one issue. Your human BF.
>> You also stated (from <6nuupb$k52$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>) "Call a
>> spade a spade, save the sarcasm for those that deserve it, those
>> for whome reason and discourse have no effect, at least that way,
>> you can have fun while you are arguing them into the ground."
>>
>> I think that be excellent advice. I think I will take it a bit more
>> to heart.
>> Perhaps your friend who rejected you has too. :)
>
>I certainly hope so too, I hope he has the courage to see who he
>really is when he looks at himself in that mirror of his.
Someone who has taken good care of your dog for 2 years and is
still caring for the dog and refuses to let him go into a volatile
situation even knowing that it has hurt your friendship with him.
Sounds like someone who is very "caring" for his animals and lives
in reality. Sounds like a Real World Zoo. I hope your new Bf was
worth the loss of him as a friend.
>> Another interesting quote worth noting: (from
><6nuupb$k52$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>)
>>
>> "There are people out there who because of circumstances have not
>> had "access" to animals on a regular enough basis to 'connect' with
>> them, yet still feel as though they belong."
>>
>> But do they really? Are their peceptions really worth the time of
>> someone experienced and dedicated to this method of sexual
expression
>> reading this group? If you must mentor "disadvantaged" zoos, then
do
>> it out side of this "news" group, TK.
>>
>> R.W.Z.
>
>A piece of advice, keep your nose in your own business, and take a
>good honest look at how you judge folks and supplant you little
>fantasies on them. If you to take that honest look, you might
>well be surprised at what you see in that mirror of yours.
His nose is in his business. This group.
Why are you bringing it here if you don't want
your dirty laundry aired. Deal with it or leave.
You have opened Pandora's box. Closing it will prove quite difficult
now.
Go play mentor to your pet husky outside of this newsgroup as RWZ
suggested.
A_human that has sex with animals
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.5 for non-commercial use <http://www.nai.com>
iQA/AwUBNcTRu8HobftZ/r9eEQLriQCglxJdAgoo7KDTXoUS7Xv+2rtQU/YAnilt
UP9JI79kAogGrRuPI3+vYEAx
=MlXT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Cor in Archenland
amz1...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6pvulo$rq3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> amz1...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > You are right, one paticular person's behavior sparked the whole thing
for
>> > me. He was acting in a way that I had seen others act before here on
atb.
>He
>> > had called off what seemed like a close friendship to me for, among
other
>> > reasons, the fact that I was going out with someone who he considered
to be
>a
>> > wannabe.
Hmm ... no, I don't consider him to be a wannabe. He *is* a wannabe .. by
your own admission and his. He has never had sex with animals, nor does he
seem inclined to (aside from cheap words on talkers). Ergo, wannabe (:
>> > Thus, the label thread. I was angry that such bullshit was around
>> > and wanted to seek out the source, it's not what I expected actually.
>>
>> Except such isn't BS. Your focus throughout your history on the net is
the
>> pursuit of a human lover.
>
>I still have had, and have animals in my life... My focus has been
contacting
>people through the net.. animals certainly can use CPUs
Ah, I see ... degenerating into semantics again? Humans are animals in the
broad sense of the word, yes, but here it is used to designate non-humans.
And while all three of my dogs have, on occasion, put paws on my keyboard,
they don't do it regularly, nor do I have 1,000 of them (if 1,000 monkeys
produce Shakespeare, what to 1,000 dogs produce?)
>
>>You are angry your friend called a
>> spade a spade, and the truth often hurts.
>
>No, losing a friendship that had been built over the course of 3 years, and
a
>dog that I had known for 2 hurt. All for someone's pride and hasty
thinking,
>borderline bigotry... perhaps he was a bit posessive of me too, I have no
way
>of knowing, I cannot read minds, but him hanging the dog over my head using
>him to get at me was quite low.
Ah, yes, that tired refrain again. Seems to me I lost a good friend and
former lover because I placed what I perceive to be the well-being of a dog
above our human relationship. Tell me, TK, how is declaring 'your' dog
(that I've fed, housed, looked after, etc for 2 years) to be mine likely to
increase our friendship, or hold him over your head? He's mine now .. you
made no attempt to find a home for him, so I did. Finit. I freely admit my
action was precipitated by your taking up with a wannabe. I have no
intention of allowing a lovable fool of a dog to be molested by him.
>> It means once again those that have not do not understand or respect
those
>> that have.
>
>Wrong, but you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, as it doesn't affect
me
>one bit. (aside from puzzlement and anger) What I have no respect for is
>bullshit, hastey thinging and anger that is simply there for anger's sake.
No respect for bullshit? Hmm .. doesn't leave much room for the wannabe
then. Oh, and the word is hasty, btw (:
Anonymous
after your failed CD porn sales... You see an attorney first thing
today.
Don't jump the gun my boy! The web site was only down for maintenance
and to add a dejanews search link!
>Someone posted:
>1) The sites dedicated to bestie <B>porn</B>. When the shit hits >the
fan (as it inevitably will),
The 'sh**' is about to hit the fan...
In any case, you have sufficiently bothered us enough that zoophile.org
will be the main focus of our efforts right now. For starters, we have
saved the dejanews archives of the 127 postings regarding zoophile.org,
going through them, we find your illegal pornography advertisement, your
detailed information regarding your machines and connection method and
costs, and accounts, the followups regarding your illegal FTP porn and
descriptions of same.
Your 'coming out' story where you said you performed oral sex on a
dog's anus was also found.
As a fair warning, we suggest that any of you zoophiles having accounts
of any kind currently residing on zoophile.org- ditch them immediately
and close your accounts today, because several seperate people took the
information and it *has* been forwarded via fax to the Conroe Texas
sheriff's dept, and is being sent to the FBI for the pornography
production, intent to distribute, transportation over state lines as a
business, and using the US Postal service. The information is also being
sent to the IRS - for income not claimed from CD sales, @ $50 each, and
the $20 account payments you received, we doubt you claimed them on your
income tax did you?
In addition, you're now attracting full attention to zoophile.org by an
animal right's activist/ software piracy investigator who is going to
research your connections and domain, but also by the equine rescue
group to whom you sent a threat to. I should mention animal right's
activists, and a Gov't psychiatrist who was asking for background
information on zoophiles. Several of these people privately mailed us
over the week-end stating what they are doing. Another asked if 'the
zoophile has been reported to the authorities yet?' You wanted our
attention Ritchie, now you have it!
We are not concerned about that one web site if it goes down since we
have six others, and if one is closed, we open a replacement, and of
course Netcom is handy...
We could also start posting the text on newsgroups as well. We did not
put all our eggs in one basket on one site!
Remember these posts Ritchie? I think you will have a lot more to be
concerned over this week than one of several mirrors of a web site, you
would best fill your time this week by shutting down your server and
contacting your attorney Monday 8:00 AM., because you'll need him;
>Several months in the making, www.zoophile.org is a major effort put
forth by Hawk to provide free unlimited webspace for
>zoophiles, with full FTP access for each user to their own directory.
Before the server even officiallywent online and gained a static
>IP, 20 users had their webpages in place upon it (including myself). On
February 19, the server finally officially went online. Although
the server was placed on a full ISDN line, anonymous FTP access to zoo
porn pictures had to be disabled to conserve bandwidth
for the explected flood of hits. CD-Rs of every picture on the FTP site
including a significant number of newly-acquired pictures and
movies are offered in place of anonymous FTP access, for sale at $50
each. Although the price is steep compared to the usual
charge of nothing, it is meant to serve as funding for the http server
(which is to remain free).
Of course, the server is not free to those who run it. All in all, going
online with an ISDN line cost $2,000 initially and roughly $300
per month to maintain. Myself and Hawk are splitting the costs, and are
hoping people will buy the CD's to offset it. Regardless, the
webpages will remain free.
The webserver will always be free to those who hold their webpages on it
and those who >use it. The anonymous FTP server, as
popular as it is, is considered secondary. There are several zoo porn
FTP sites in existence >now, but no zoo http servers.
Information about getting your own zoophile webpage may be obtained by
visiting the website at <A HREF="/jump/http://www.zoophile.org or by
e-mailing the server owner and administrator.
Registrant:
Ritchey Mulhollem (ZOOPHILE2-DOM)
11314 S. Lakeshore Drive
Conroe, TX 77303 US
Domain Name: ZOOPHILE.ORG
Administrative Contact:
Mulhollem, Ritchey (RM8139) ha...@PDQ.NET
713-407-7347<BR>
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Guthrie, J-Mag M. A (JMG91) j-...@BROKERSYS.COM
281-895-8101 (FAX) 281-895-8109
Billing Contact:
Mulhollem, Ritchey (RM8140) zooph...@YAHOO.COM
713-407-7347
Record last updated on 30-Dec-97.
From: protei@#########
To: <A
HREF="http://www.dejanews.com/profile.xp?author=ha...@zoophile.org&ST=PS"><B>hawk</B>@zoophile.org</A>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 13:24:51 -0700
Subject: my webpage...
Hey <B>Hawk</B>,
With regrets, I must request that you delete my site from zoophile.org.
There are several factors which make me uncomfortable remaining there.
It is only fair to let you know what the main factors are:
1) The sites dedicated to bestie <B>porn</B>. When the shit hits the
fan (as it
inevitably will), I owe it to myself and my lovers to have put as much
distance between us and the shit as possible. It's a shame that freedom
of expression contains so many double-standards in this country, a
situation I'd like to see change, but I must pick and choose my battles.
And I simply choose not to battle for <B>porn</B>. Further, it doesn't
matter what you, <B>Eagle</B>, or
any of the other users think is legal or should be; the only opinion I
care about is that of the people enforcing the laws as they interpret
them, and I
--
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Anonymous
Hash: SHA1
amz1...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Here we have a prime example of a person with a double standard. He on one
> hand , forces his fantasies into reality when he interprets events and words
> but on the other hand as a real world zoo, he says he has a great deal of
> respect for reality.
>
> > I didn't say you did not have animals in your life, or even that you do or
do
> > not have sex with them. That is your read on what I wrote. My point is you
do
> > not chose an animal as your lover, but rather humans.
>
> How do you know what I chose as my lover then? I like both, they each have
> something to offer that is unique and wonderful unto itself, how can you have
> the information to suppose that I prefer humans?
I did not say you "prefer." Your read once again. I said "chose" as in making a
choice. What you prefer does not matter in this instance, but your choices do.
As to how I tell what you chose, I read your own words, unless you are going
state own words are lies. However, I believe you to be an honest person.
You yourself in article: <345CC080...@hotmail.com> proclaimed eloquently:
"Truth is a simple matter though some would call it subjective I would disagree
and insist that truth must by its very nature have tethering in reality [and] in
fact."
Do you consider your own words tethered in reality and fact?
In article <65hqst$1...@news-central.tiac.net> last fall you stated:
"I met Canine in June of 95, roughly the time I found the zoo.net..
Being in awe and overcome with relief and catharsis our relationship
grew until we decided that we absolutely had to meet, we basically fell
in love online (in hindsight I question whether this was real love or
infatuation--regardless of what it was, it lightened my step, fired my
imagination and inspired my heart---powerful for a strictly verbose
medium) We met that following Jan (my Xmas break from school)...."
What about the words of Canine Casanova in an post from 3-96? (article
<151304Z...@anon.penet.fi>) Are they rooted in truth?
"Tomokato is a zoo and he & I have a very deep and loving relationship.
He is currently attending school in MA until late May, when he planss to
move to Oregon so we can live together. His parents searched his room
while he was here visiting me in January, and found things about his
zoosexuality and letters between him and me...."
Looks like you chose a human. Where's poor Sammy? Oh, that's right, languishing
at home without a sex life or his human lover. You abandoned him to the care of
your parents. You didn't consider the consquences of possessing zoo material in
your parents house. Did you consider at all such would endanger your
relationship with your dog? Oh, that's right, you were treading on the cloud of
human love.
(continued from Canine's article)
"At this moment he is staying with friends and will be going back to school to
finish the current semester unless something else changes. He has also lost any
chance of seeing Sammy, his beloved Golden Retriever, ever again. Needless to
say, things aren't going well."
You always have a choice. You chose to move on west to be with a human. I'm sure
you will whine that you didn't have a choice, and life handed you a plate of
shit, but the fact is the dog did not matter enough for you to go out of your
way; he was not your principle lover, the other K9 was.
> And here's where you supplant your fantasies into your interpretation...
>
> You said "such isn't BS".... was this referring to what I was angry at. That
> being, hasty judgements and bigotry based on what someone percieves of
> someone elses sex life. It is bullshit... he has never met my bf irl, and
> only through scant online interaction came to the conclusion that he was a
> wannabe... and furthermore that he would molest dogs he would come into
> contact with (one of the excuses he used when he sent me "the" .smail.)
In article <6o5dhe$ekg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> You explain clearly the premise for
the situation in which you refer to in the above paragraph.
"An excellent credo, take responsibility for those you love, for the animals
that depend on you for shelter, food and companionship. Who in their right
mind would think of doing otherwise? Everyone's situation is different, for
me finishing my degree work is #1 on my list, so I can't keep animals and it
only bothered me that I could not keep animals when someone gave me a dog and
they had to keep it for quite a long time. If I were smart I would have
refused the gift flatly, but my decision then was clouded by expectations of
moving in with this fellow zoo and sharing the responsibilities for the
animals so I accepted. Several months down the line when it became clear that
the plan was not going to work, it was too late, the dog had won our hearts
over and try as we might (half hearted attempts but attempts none the less)
we could not find this dog a loving home."
So here you are explaining about the dog which was "held over you head" when you
started dating a human again. Your fellow zoo friend kept and cared for what he
must have thought was your lover. The dog was your lover wasn't he? That is
evidenced by your opening statement "take responsibility for those you love."
However, I agree with you, it was poor decision making on your part accepting
the gift to begin with, but that does not absolve you of the responsibility. Or
should that first sentence really read "take responsibility for [only] those
[who are human] you love, ...."
So what does this mean? You ask to leave this beast lay, but you come to this
group with issues grounded in that situation. Your friend has yet to speak up if
he reads the group, and I'm sure he does, but the point remains, why did he feel
compelled to withhold the dog when you chose another human for a lover? More
importantly, why did you chose to give up the dog? Life serve you another plate
of shit? The dog not important enough to merit inconveniencing yourself? By your
own words in article <1998080113...@replay.com:
"No, losing ... and a dog that I had known for 2 [years] hurt." It "just" hurt?
A lover of two years is maliciously and vengefully taken from you and that is
all you can say is it "hurt"? Did you do anything to regain your lover? Maybe he
wasn't a lover at all, but just a sexual outlet. Please, tell us the truth, TK.
The reality of the truth is the dogs in you life merit second rate attention.
After all, it is just a dog. I would enjoy you demonstrating else wise. I'm not
"supplanting" crap. You words and actions clearly demonstrate your choices.
Choices are fact, not a preference. That is reality.
> Seems there's a group of people out there (you being one of them RWZ) who
> love to supplant their version of reality onto others with little or no
> information about the truth, as you have done here. You have stated that he
Seems the contrary, friend. You have been quite verbose about your life choices
on this group, and ASB. Should we chalk up your words (paraphrased) earlier that
this medium does not reveal anything about character, or as you put it, "moral
character"? Your words reveal a great deal about your character towards the
animals in your life, and the choices you make regarding your relationship with
them.
> called a spade a spade, that he was accurate in his judgement. How can you
Gee, who has failed the accuracy test now? I said nothing of the sort. I did,
however state:
" You are angry your friend called a
spade a spade, and the truth often hurts."
I dare you to quote it, punk.
> even begin to realistically give a true statement in this regard. You have
> detached yourself from reality there, as I am sure you have done in the past
> and will continue to do in the future.
>
> > You stated animals are capable of complex emotion,
>
> Here we go again... look at that little word complex... and then go back to
> my posts - I dare you to quote it.... What I really said was that they are
Why should I? You are not even capable of holding yourself to you own standard.
> capable of emotion. (wouldnt it be nice if you could be accurate and
> truthful?)
>
> >then why the gravitation to nearly hairless bipeds?
>
> There are things humans can offer that animals cannot. You cannot share music
> with a dog, or one's appreciation of poetry or countless other things. I said
> before, that what draws me to animals is the pure and powerful emotions that
> they are able to somehow clearly and honestly communicate far better than any
> human I have run across.
If they offer so much more, then why do they seem to end up on the shitty end of
the stick when you come along?
> > Something lacking? The animal just a cheap fuck not capable of meeting your
> > needs for intimacy?
>
> Trying to supplant reality on me again mr realworldzoo?
Nope. Just calling a spade a spade.
> > > >The animals come second in your book, thus all the philosophical
> > > > caterwauling that has rained upon this group.
> >
> > > Animals and Humans come second in my book bub. First things first, and
> > > that;s to get a degree and a place set up for myself.
> >
> > Was my meaning that obscure?
>
> It was lost in your suppositions and that smoke rising from your head.
Obviously all this is obscure to you.
> > It would be interesting to hear what he has to say. Perhaps he saw something
> > else all together different about your actions and their consequences. Why
> would
> > a long time friend suddenly turn on you? It doesn't make sense.
>
> Nope, makes no sense, but it's a pattern I have seen him take before on other
> matters. There's no need to even bring it up again, let the sleeping beast
> lay. In fact though I think it has something to do with the pattern of
> behavior that you seem to be displaying now RWZ, supplanting realities.
No, actually to postulate on the factual evidentiary foundation you have built
with your words, your friend seems to be quite in touch with the reality of your
life.
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > What does this mean?
> > > >
> > > > It means once again those that have not do not understand or respect
those
> > > > that have.
> > >
> > > Wrong, but you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, as it doesn't
affect
> me
> > > one bit. (aside from puzzlement and anger) What I have no respect for is
> > > bullshit, hastey thinging and anger that is simply there for anger's sake.
> >
> > My summation was not meant to affect you, just sum up your attitude. It is
> > quite clear where your priorities lay.
>
> Absolutely- here on this group, to explore the twisted attitude you so
> vigorously display, for my own edification as to why what happened happened,
> in the broader spectrum of life, first things first....
Well, here's to your past, present, and future edification. :)
> A piece of advice, keep your nose in your own business, and take a good honest
You have made your business public record on this forum inviting us to comment
and debate these issues. If you don't like it, then don't drag your "business"
here for all to evaluate.
> look at how you judge folks and supplant you little fantasies on them. If you
> to take that honest look, you might well be surprised at what you see in that
> mirror of yours.
I think that is fitting advice, for you. You need to take a hard long look at
where you priorities lay in relationship to the animals in your life. If anyone
is projecting fantasies it is you. Do you think this group is the failed SSZ?
This group is the antithesis of what SSZ was supposed to be.
In your little submittal of test posts to be evaluated by would be moderators,
would my stuff have passed? No.
Pretty plain as to why in the guide for moderation in the RFD for SSZ.
"From the moderation policy in the rfd.
Welcome on soc.support.zoophilia are all zoophiliacs,
any experts in legal matters of sexual nature, and persons who
are knowledgeable or interested in the psychological aspects of
zoophilia. All persons are welcome who are curious about zoophilia,
or interested in reasonable discussions of the topic.
Moderation Policy:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Relevant discussions on soc.support.zoophilia will include: the
social and emotional difficulties that zoophiliacs have in today's
world; legal issues affecting zoophiles; and emotional support for
zoophiles who are confused or depressed about their love for animals.
Well-written questions and opinions, from any point of view, will also
be welcomed.
This group will not be used for fictional erotica, encoded pictures,
personal advertisements, or prurient discussion of the physical aspects
of bestiality. Soc.support.zoophilia has been put forward as a place to
exchange information and offer emotional support."
The antithesis. Remember that, TK.
R.W.Z.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNcUd8kjuxwPFShrOEQIP2QCggcj2pCQAwgzLwlFP5d2n0D9Kb7wAn3d+
VOswgN1IXa+cTlzfOHIZ8qLR
=Vs4M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
nob...@nsm.htp.org
threat letter, you wouldn't be soliciting help from
your buddies on the AR group. Why? Because to file
complaints you have to reveal who you are, which would
then be a matter of public record. Everyone would
then know you are really Randy Pepe the zoophile.
Get a life you pathetic piece of shit.
Date:
Sat, 1 Aug 1998 11:31:07 EDT
From:
Sayn...@aol.com
To:
ar-v...@envirolink.org
Subject:
Zoophile's new attempt to shut down our web site
Message-ID:
<b9015b1f...@aol.com>
Mime-Version:
1.0
Content-type:
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding:
7bit
I am forwarding this message I received from someone who runs an illegal
internet provider service
domain named zoophile.org they began their service by offering illegal
bestiality CD rom's for sale to raise funds (This is archived in dejanews).
They host a domain devoted to allowing animal sexual predators to have sex
sites, ftp trading , and animal sex web sites, and they laughably try to
threaten *us* with a lawsuit!! Obviously our 4,000 hits on our one site alone
in 6 weeks is making them nervous and that is what this letter to us was
*really*about- another effort by animal abusers to censor and convert the
rest of the majority.
If there are any interested parties here in the law enforcement capacity, or
who have a friend who is, get in touch with us, we have complete information
on this group's server, their posts promoting bestiality pornography cd's,
their domain name registration information that includes their names,
addresses, and email addresses. Their web server hosts web sites and accounts
devoted to people who sexually abuse animals.
I would think the FBI would like to take a look, and this gives animal right's
activists an excellent opportunity to knock an entire domain devoted to
bestiality right out of the water.
We now have several mirrors for our web site, but if there are any domain
owners here who would like to mirror any or all of our web site on their
server, feel free to copy and edit to your needs, any of our source files from
our web site;
http://members.aol.com/saynozoos/index.html
> Subj: Legal Action
> Date: 8/1/98 6:23:58 PM TST
> From: zooph...@yahoo.com (Zoophile Org)
> Reply-to: ha...@zoophile.org
> To: sayn...@aol.com
>
> This is formal notice that I intend to take legal action against you
> for the slanderous remarks made on your website:
>
> http://members.aol.com/saynozoos/index.html
>
> The comments on Zoophile.Org are completely FALSE and MALICIOUS!! AOL
> has already been contacted and informed of the slanderous remarks
> made.
>
> Since your website states that replies to this email address will be
> posted public, then please let it be known that it MUST be posted in
> its entirety and NOT be edited! Let it be known that I intend to
> prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law!
>
> However, if you agree to remove your website, I will NOT file a
> lawsuit.
>
> If you do not comply, I will obtain your name though AOL and proceed
> with legal action.
>
> Please. I beg you. Remove your site and stop promoting hatred and
> lies. This site does nothing more then provide catalyst for those who
> would commit hate crimes.
>
> Remove your website and I will not file a lawsuit. We need MORE
> understanding and LESS hatred.
Dear Mr animal molester,
We have now *several* identical mirror websites, thus, attacking our free
speech here will not have the desired effect you are seeking- censorship and
revenge.
Your server is running illegal materials, and we are forwarding your mail
to groups that deal with this legality. Your server also hosts web sites for
people who abuse equines and promote sexual molestation of horses, dogs and
other animals. Seems to me it is *you* who should now worry about a police and
FBI investigation into your illegal server and activities thereon.
You don't need understanding, you need *jail* terms and psychiatric help.
As far as obtaining our name from AOL, good luck on that! And good luck on
your threats to file a lawsuit! You will be in jail before then for illegal
distribution and intent to distribute illegal (and probably copyright pirated)
pornography over state lines.
In the event you do manage to shut our web site down *here* , there are
several more now installed in the event this occurs, and we will be adding
additional sites as well.
We have the proof that your server hosted illegal pornography sales, offering
to the public, copies of CD rom's of animal sex to gain funds to start your
web server and T-1 line. You discontinued this when people in your group
protested it would bring the FBI into the scene to prosecute- that is a matter
of public record on dejanews archives and we are forwarding that information
now to the appropriate persons with-in the FBI
Unfortunately for you, zoophile.org is *registered* as a domain name, thus you
are a sitting duck for prosecution.
It is far too late to withdraw our efforts at this time, we have sent
materials to pedophile groups, animal rescue
groups, animal right's groups, State Senators, a Government official and many
others. The ball is rolling regardless of our web site here.
We are also *not* the only ones who have a web site devoted to this issue.
I suggest you contact *your* attorney and work on a defense and not worry
about *our* web sites!
Don't bother writing back.
Date:
Sat, 1 Aug 1998 11:50:11 EDT
From:
Sayn...@aol.com
To:
ar-v...@envirolink.org
Subject:
zoophile.org (animal sex domain) registration information
Message-ID:
<61b407a5...@aol.com>
Mime-Version:
1.0
Content-type:
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding:
7bit
I have to tell activists, that regarding the threat to us and another
activist by the owners of zoophile.org- these two kids barely scrape by every
month to pay the bill on their connection, they were offering illegal
bestiality cd's for sale on the newsgroups, and on their animal sex forurms in
order to set up and run the thing.
When the other zoophiles protested strongly, they discontinued that. They
are considered black sheep in the group with many of them hating these two,
and blaming them for 'endangering' the 'community' by offering these cd's and
possibly drawing the scrutiny of the FBI on all of them.
Animal rightists who may have connections in the Conroe Texas area, here is
who the zoophile.org domain is registered to, and a search on www.dejanews.com
for; zoophile.org will show numerous postings on alt.talk.bestiality and
elsewhere over this domain's illegal activities and animal sex web sites. If
anyone would like to forward this to any law enforcement agency, especially in
Texas, feel free to do so. You may also visit this server's web site
www.zoophile.org is a good place to start. Let's see if we can't shut down
this disgusting server devoted exclusively to offering anonymous internet
accounts to animal molesters so they can run web sites, telnet chats and
distribute files and porn on how to have sex with animals.
The way I see it, they made a *big* mistake opening the thing in the first
place, and now threatening us and another activist with bogus legal threats
is going to be their biggest mistake when the FBI is involved.
Here is their domain name registration information;
Registrant:
amz1...@my-dejanews.com
This is the first of two posts in chich I am called upon to defend myself...
In article <81c08631cc484c6d...@anonymous.poster>,
Samson <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sun, 02 Aug 1998 11:39:27 GMT, amz1...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >Here we have a prime example of a person with a double standard. He
> >on one hand , forces his fantasies into reality when he interprets
> >events and words but on the other hand as a real world zoo, he says
> >he has a great deal of respect for reality.
>
> A double standard? How so?
> You are merely upset because he has forced you to get to
> the heart of this matter and that is.."I want people to accept
> my new human Bf here even tho he is a "wannabe" by The standards
> set forth by speedy and "Now that I have a human Bf I want the dog
> here where I couldn't seem to have him before."
Actually A) I was attacking what I thought to be the source of his bigotry
towards my forming realtionship and B) That second quote about the dog is pure
supposition on your part.
> > Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:000
> >> amz1...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Which will be living with you right now? The human.
> Which have you chosen to live with in the past? The human.
>
> His words ring true.
> When has your dog lived with you?
> Not any time in recent history.
You speak with authority on details of my life which I have not shared on this
newsgroup. How can you do this? Where is your evidence? Where is your
knowledge of details and reasonings for my life choices? Dogs do not help pay
bills.
> Ok lets get this straight..another person is taking care of
> your dog for 2 years. You get a new human mate and immediately
> wish to take the dog away from his old home. The person who has
> been caring for him, and paying for him (?) has a right to be
> suspicious and worried for the dogs health.
> What is different that you can have him now?
> If you could always have him then why did you wait 2 years and
> a new human Bf later?
I never asked for the dog, we were continually looking for a place for him to
live, and I was looking for a stable home for myself so that I could provide a
roof for him.
> As for what was percieved of your new bf I cannot say his
> estimate was off the mark. Text is what we have to go on here.
> Your bf talks like a wannabe.
My bf hasn't talked at all (reality is being supplanted by you now.) And
whether or not he is zoo is not important to me, as long as he doesnt have a
problem with my being sexually active with animals.
> > How can you even begin to realistically give a true
> >statement in this regard.
>
> - From your own posts of course. You have brought your business and the
> business of a few others to this group in your posts. All that he
> needs
> to know of your choices past and present can be read from the dejanews
> archives of ATB and ASB.
Even from this record you lack the facts and details that are so important in
life, so important in making decisions. I will not give these details out
for my own protection. Even without these details you speak with authority
and make judgements about who I am, and the choices I have made.
> <snip>
>
> >>then why the gravitation to nearly hairless bipeds?
> >
> >There are things humans can offer that animals cannot. You cannot
> >share music with a dog, or one's appreciation of poetry or countless
> >other things. I said before, that what draws me to animals is the
> pure
> >and powerful emotions that they are able to somehow clearly and
> honestly
> >communicate far better than any human I have run across.
>
> However you have spent most of your time getting human mates
> rather than working to have a place for you and your animal mate.
>
> This is what RWZ is saying. This is fact, not a made up version of
> reality.
I would not bring a dog into my life that I could not care for. The decision
to accept a dog as a gift was a mistake braught on by a false expectations of
the future. My quests for human companionship are another topic entirely,
feel free to talk about that on another more appropriate newsgroup.
> >> Something lacking? The animal just a cheap fuck not capable of
> >> meeting your needs for intimacy?
> >
> >Trying to supplant reality on me again mr realworldzoo?
>
> Or has he hit bone and it hurts to admit?
More examples of making your expectations a reality in your mind perhaps?
> You have brought it here. Why? The truth shows itself now. You came
> here and started these threads because you know this is one place you
> can get his attention. ATB became your battlefront because the talkers
> wouldn't have that bs. It is you who wouldn't let sleeping dogs lay.
I attacked what I thought was a group of people who created at atmosphere
where labeling and supplanting reality was accepted an justified. I found
that only a few people are guilty of such. Your contributions toward waking
the dog are well documented, you expect me to take your biting posts lying
down? Let my business be my own and let this thread die. It does not belong
here.
> What are you really fighting for? To get the dog back or to get
> people to accept your new bf? I don't see you putting as much
> effort into the animal as you are the human.
>
> RWZ's words ring true again.
What am fighting for?
One word, truth. Back off, let me live my life.
>>> him hanging the dog over my head using him to get at
>>> me was quite low.
> Him hanging the dog over your head? No. You used him as a kennel for 2
> years and now the bill is due.
My priorities were and are very clear. I could not support the dog, and that
man was very generous in keeping him for so long. Had he decided to place
him in a home durring that time I would not have been upset, he was for all
intents and purposes his dog. He was my dog only in the spirit of giving and
the feelings I had towards him. I was very angered by the way he handled
things, and I will not divulge details for everyone's sake. Let the thread
die.
> Perhaps he felt that you had started a good thread only to find out
> the motivation behind it was a self-centered desire to get this group
> to accept your new human bf.
> It would upset me to find I had spent all that time bantering
> with you and that you had no intention of listening to a word I wrote.
>
> Talking to a brick wall.
Look back and see what I wrote, you made some very good points, and I did
aswell, for the most part many of the discussions were moving forward, though
there was a distinct bite of sarcasm in there at times.
> >As far as I was concerned the vast majority of issues were
> >straightened out and I was perfectly content to let the discussion
> drop,
> >but no, it must be dragged on further. -wonderful
>
> All encompassing one issue. Your human BF.
The use of labels endangers the user to poor thinking and judgement. I do not
seek to change peoples minds about a paticular individual, just to open their
heads to the possibility that their so carefully manicured shortcuts aren't
worth dick.
> >> You also stated (from <6nuupb$k52$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>) "Call a
> >> spade a spade, save the sarcasm for those that deserve it, those
> >> for whome reason and discourse have no effect, at least that way,
> >> you can have fun while you are arguing them into the ground."
> >>
> >> I think that be excellent advice. I think I will take it a bit more
> >> to heart.
> >> Perhaps your friend who rejected you has too. :)
> >
> >I certainly hope so too, I hope he has the courage to see who he
> >really is when he looks at himself in that mirror of his.
>
> Someone who has taken good care of your dog for 2 years and is
> still caring for the dog and refuses to let him go into a volatile
> situation even knowing that it has hurt your friendship with him.
Volitile situation? I never asked for the dog, and I would not have even
thought of it untill the situation were stable. You continue your pattern of
reality infringement.
> Sounds like someone who is very "caring" for his animals and lives
> in reality. Sounds like a Real World Zoo. I hope your new Bf was
> worth the loss of him as a friend.
His actions call into question his motives for being my friend. Was the dog
there simply to keep me around? Was the dog a hook? Now that I had moved on
did he want to try and reel me in? Who knows, but a friend does not make
hastey decisions and broad sweeping genralizations all without taking the
time to understnad the details of the situation. Whether or not he cares for
his animals is another issue entirely. You do not know details, back off.
> His nose is in his business. This group.
> Why are you bringing it here if you don't want
> your dirty laundry aired. Deal with it or leave.
>
> You have opened Pandora's box. Closing it will prove quite difficult
> now.
>
> Go play mentor to your pet husky outside of this newsgroup as RWZ
> suggested.
>
> A_human that has sex with animals
My motives my life is entirely separate from the issues I origonally raised
about the use of labels and the quick often hastey judgements that people make
and seem to continue to make. I would rather not discuss my life, I'd rather
discuss issues-paticualarly, bestiality, wouldn't you?
amz1...@my-dejanews.com
not to talk about my own personal life, details as they become divulged
endanger my life's stability (not that I have taken many steps to maintain my
anonymity.)
I have always tried to live my life the best way I know how. I have tried
always to be kind, just and truthful. You continue to supplant your
realities into the past and into my motives and current situation using
information which is incomplete and guessed, and yet you speak with an air of
authority. This was exactly what I was protesting in my first Label post,
you continue to demonstrate it beautifully. What are your motives? Do you
get off on digging into people's lives? Are you connected with or actually
that man I was referring to in my post? I suggest you let the thread drop,
it has little to do with Bestiality, the said topic of this group.
In article <1998080302...@replay.com>,
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> amz1...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> I did not say you "prefer." Your read once again. I said "chose" as in making
a
> choice. What you prefer does not matter in this instance, but your choices do.
> As to how I tell what you chose, I read your own words, unless you are going
> state own words are lies. However, I believe you to be an honest person.
A preference dicates choice. You have cited an instance in my life where I
chose to move out to be with Canine, seemingly leaving my canine lover
behind. You do not know the details of what went on, my leaving him behind
was a painful and necessary decision.
You attempt to show another such choice again in my recent history by chosing
to enter into a relationship with another human. Again you do not know the
details of what occured between the guy who kept my dog nor between my bf and
myself. What do you hope to acomplish by bringing these things up?
In both circumstances I was unable to house the dog. In both cases I did not
legally own the dog. In both cases the people who did decided to take their
gift from me did so: one, because of my decision to enter into a relatioship
with what he considered a wannabe: and the other because I was a zoo. Again,
there are details you do not and will not know so just back off and accept
the fact that you cannot make an acurate judgement as to my actions or
character. If the situations were reversed I would never go to the trouble
you have to make a point. I have more class than to drag a man through the
mud to make a point, but you sir do not. You are cruel biggoted and
hypocritical.
> So what does this mean? You ask to leave this beast lay, but you come to this
> group with issues grounded in that situation.
The issues are grounded in the situation but were not important until you made
them important. Have we forgotten the central issue here? One cannot grasp
truth without knowing details, the use of shortcuts in this regard circumvents
reality.
>Your friend has yet to speak up if he reads the group, and I'm sure he does,
I regret airing this laundry and hope he lets the sleeping dog lay. It has
little to do with Bestiality.
> but the point remains, why did hefeel compelled to withhold the dog when you
>chose another human for a lover?
A good question, his answer like your post is based on supposition.
>Moreimportantly, why did you chose to give up the dog?
It was not my choice, but his own to keep the dog. (another one of your
suppositions slides by the wayside)
>By your own words in article <1998080113...@replay.com:
>
> "No, losing ... and a dog that I had known for 2 [years] hurt." It "just"
> hurt?
>
> A lover of two years is maliciously and vengefully taken from you and that is
> all you can say is it "hurt"? Did you do anything to regain your lover? Maybe
> he wasn't a lover at all, but just a sexual outlet. Please, tell us the truth,
> TK.
False. My brevity in that statement was due to my desire not to air it. Hurt
is perfectly descriptive of what I felt.
> The reality of the truth is the dogs in you life merit second rate attention.
> After all, it is just a dog. I would enjoy you demonstrating else wise. I'm
>not "supplanting" crap.
Ahhh but with only my words to go on, you lack the details, and you know you
lack the details you need to make an accurate and true judgement like you have
here. Back off and leave it alone.
> You words and actions clearly demonstrate your choices.
> Choices are fact, not a preference. That is reality.
Sorry, but without sufficient information, you have nothing. Reality is what
happens, not what you think or say happens.
> > called a spade a spade, that he was accurate in his judgement. How can you
>
> Gee, who has failed the accuracy test now? I said nothing of the sort. I did,
> however state:
>
> " You are angry your friend called a
> spade a spade, and the truth often hurts."
>
> I dare you to quote it, punk.
You did it for me. My friend called my bf a wannabe, by saying that he
called a spade a spade you are in fact agreeing with him are you not? By
saying the truth often hurst are you not saying that his judgement is fact in
your mind? in fact supporting his judgement? Well bud, I think you fail the
reality test. And that wasn't even due to your lack of information either.
> > even begin to realistically give a true statement in this regard. You have
> > detached yourself from reality there, as I am sure you have done in the past
> > and will continue to do in the future.
> >
> > > You stated animals are capable of complex emotion,
> >
> > Here we go again... look at that little word complex... and then go back to
> > my posts - I dare you to quote it.... What I really said was that they are
>
> Why should I? You are not even capable of holding yourself to you own
> standard.
At least I make an honest and concerted effort to tether my words to truth.
I'd ask you to show me where I have not but it's irrelavent to the topic of
Bestiality. The simple fact remains "oh reality-challenged one" that I did
not state nor imply that animals were capable of complex emotion.
Your attacks continue...
> If they (animals) offer so much more, then why do they seem to end up on the
> shitty end of the stick when you come along?
Biting, negative, and unsubstanciated. Both animals in question are in good
health and happy. (I can vouch for one, but the other is an expectation that
the man who witheld the dog will take good care of him as he has for the past
2 years)
My feelings for them both are something you are incapable of knowing, as you
are not me.
> > > Something lacking? The animal just a cheap fuck not capable of meeting
your
> > > needs for intimacy?
> >
> > Trying to supplant reality on me again mr realworldzoo?
>
> Nope. Just calling a spade a spade.
Actually, given the pattern oulined clearly above I think the truth is, you
would like to believe that in my heart animals are a cheap fuck (it would
back up what you've been doing, and even justify your negativity.) Give it
up, accept the limitations of the medium and the limitations of your ability
to know and judge me.
> > A piece of advice, keep your nose in your own business, and take a good
> >honest
>
> You have made your business public record on this forum inviting us to comment
> and debate these issues. If you don't like it, then don't drag your "business"
> here for all to evaluate.
In one sense I am glad I did, for you have shown your true colors to all. In
another sense I regret putting myself and anyone else involved in the
slightest amount of danger. I would hope your continued displays would be
limited to on topic discussion, if you want to talk about my human
relationships or my business go elsewhere. (you know where to go)
> > look at how you judge folks and supplant you little fantasies on them. If
you
> > to take that honest look, you might well be surprised at what you see in
that
> > mirror of yours.
>
> I think that is fitting advice, for you. You need to take a hard long look at
> where you priorities lay in relationship to the animals in your life.
I always question myself. I do not let myself get away with anything I think
is wrong or unjust. I suggest you question your own motives for keeping this
ball of destruction rolling.
>If anyone is projecting fantasies it is you.
I don't think so, in fact I have adequately demonstraited your pattern of
attack. It's unified, centered around inaccurate judgements and fantasies
about my life choices and morality. Judgements you have no business making
and fantasies which have only the slightest tethering in reality. Take a
good hard honest look at yourself RWZ. What are yur motives for attacking?
But please, keep them to yourself, I am sure people do not want to hear your
spew here on atb.
Is atb here to discuss personal details of peoples lives? No- It is here for
the discussion of having sex with animals. I agree with you RWZ that this is
not SSZ. Perhaps someone should get the ball rolling on that again, but
that's not relevant here now is it. What is relevant is that seemingly, in
spite of your title RWZ, some aspect of your spiteful personality actually
permits mental shortcuts to satisfy some desire for justifying your view of
reality. (shurg) Accept your limitations, you simply do not have the details
to make a truthful and accurate judgement. I wonder how many other instances
of this you are guilty of in the past...
TKO
Anonymous
>their threats of reporting us; my guess would be they have. However, we have
>not been contacted by any of the numerous agencies this individual threatened
>to report us to in a number of e-mails between himself and Hawk.
A done deal, but don't neglect the fact that events never take place
overnight- it could take them weeks or even months. They would not contact
you the next day! Typically, they would monitor and gather further
evidence, and then a search warrant.
>I think your perception of what Zoo Buster is trying to accomplish is
>absolutely correct: he is trying to scare the living daylights out of zoos.
Our intent is to shut zoophile's promotional web sites and their forums.
And while Hawk may be successful in closing our web site, we simply will
open another one elsewhere within 24 hours on another provider- overseas if
need be.
Currently, we also have had several copies out on the net as mirrors for
some time now in anticipation of the possibility of a site going down.
>It is my hope in what action I do take, that others will realize he is not
>some immortal being whose banter they must submit to ... but it is my
>greatest fear that some will try and do something against these anti-zoos
>that would paint an image of all zoos that would lend credence to the claim
>that zoos are a menacing, subversive group.
The email bombs by rac...@aol.com and others, as well as threats by
several, already have shown your group to be a menacing subversive one in
forums where these items have been republished.
>The counts of libel were in direct reference to statements he made about Hawk
>and myself
And the 127 archived posts in dejanews, including your newsletter text
offering cd's for sale- regarding your domain zoophile.org are also
'libel' and slander too I suppose...
>Unfortunately, as many have discovered, his page has been returned. Notable
>absent from his page, however, are any specific comments about the financing
>of zoophile.org.
>And yes, saynozoos, I know you are reading this. Your explanation for the
>shutdown of his webpage and e-mail address was that you uploaded a corrupt
>index.html to your website. Hmmm. I guess the mail server just forgot about
>you for a few hours! Either that or ... *shock* ... you are LYING!
It works, and my explanation is simply conjecture on my part, since I
personally was unaware of any 'shutdown', but in the afternoon of Saturday,
logging out to edit when supposedly according to you our account was 'down'
for a couple of hours. We didn'nt notice so it would have been a very short
time because we had no access problem. Also, using an anonymous remailer
(yahoo.com) and your vic mail address to mail the server your claims of
slander threats- with a bouncing ha...@zoophile.org 'reply-to:' in the
header is a sure fire way to being taken seriously by any postmaster!
Interesting how the owners of a domain claiming slander, and threatening
a lawsuit use an outside anonymous remailer to make contact! Of course you
base your claim
of 'slander' by stating the slander consists of the statement that
zoophile.org promotes *bestiality* (sex with animals) but in reality you
admitted your site promotes *zoophilism* (sex with animals), trying
convincing a court of law that these are really different meanings and
therefore slander!! Also try convincing them that more than 127 postings in
the dejanews archives over several months are just 'hear-say'
I was editing the index.html to add a more effective search code and
uploaded it. However, either the word processor added characters, or the
file was uploaded by binary by accident- the file was likely corrupt and we
didn't notice untill we checked later and re-uploaded a new copy. In any
event, we don't care what happened or not, the service is *not* in the
habit of closing accounts on a Saturday afternoon and then reopening them a
couple of hours later! Likely their machines were down for maintenance if
nothing else. And they never contacted us in any case.
The new search engine is far better than a one liner, as it allows the
reader to see all of the specific posts pertaining to oral sex on a dog's
anus, advertisement for
illegal porn to finance an internet line, followups from account holders
who were dis-satisfied and concerned over the porn on the ftp server
depicting bestiality etc.
and then the post ranting at readers 'fu** this I've had it, the server is
closed'
We plan to add the other domains to additional search engines once we
narrow the archived posts to the important items.
> I have archived the original page if anyone wishes; simply
>e-mail my DejaNews account if you are interested.
Yes, and dejanews was informed that you have posted copyrighted text and
stated you intended to distribute.
>There is a support group for you at telnet://talker.com:4410
Thanks for the domain host name, we'll check out who runs the site and
pass it along.
>Zoo Buster is not alone in threatening to "report us" to law enforcement.
>Hawk and I have received similar threats from zoos (as well as other Zoo
>Buster wannabes, and a large number of anonymous remailer Mr. Xs who we have
>no way of knowing if they are or are not zoo).
This is true there are a number who are not only 'threatening', but are
actively reporting to the Conroe TX agencies and others.
--
m...@foobar.com
> newsgroup. How can you do this? Where is your evidence? Where is your
> knowledge of details and reasonings for my life choices? Dogs do not help pay
> bills.
It is really quite simple. "A human who has sex with animals" is actually
Wolfheart. "RWZ" is Bushrat. In the case of Wolfheart, he has had many
homosexual encounters with men on the forest, but everyone dumped him
because acts so selfishly. Now he is bitter about it and takes it out on
anyone he can. Wolfheart is very keen at stabbing people behind their
backs. Everyone should remember that when talking to him.
bgtvfrc...@hotmail.com
> Errr, Ritchie? We suggest that if you want to play shining knight here
> after your failed CD porn sales... You see an attorney first thing
> today.
>
> Don't jump the gun my boy! The web site was only down for maintenance
> and to add a dejanews search link!
>
> >Someone posted:
>
> >1) The sites dedicated to bestie <B>porn</B>. When the shit hits >the
> fan (as it inevitably will),
>
> The 'sh**' is about to hit the fan...
> saved the dejanews archives of the 127 postings regarding zoophile.org,
> going through them, we find your illegal pornography advertisement, your
> detailed information regarding your machines and connection method and
> costs, and accounts, the followups regarding your illegal FTP porn and
> descriptions of same.
>
> Your 'coming out' story where you said you performed oral sex on a
> dog's anus was also found.
>
> As a fair warning, we suggest that any of you zoophiles having accounts
> of any kind currently residing on zoophile.org- ditch them immediately
> information and it *has* been forwarded via fax to the Conroe Texas
> production, intent to distribute, transportation over state lines as a
> business, and using the US Postal service. The information is also being
> sent to the IRS - for income not claimed from CD sales, @ $50 each, and
> the $20 account payments you received, we doubt you claimed them on your
> income tax did you?
>
> In addition, you're now attracting full attention to zoophile.org by an
> research your connections and domain, but also by the equine rescue
> group to whom you sent a threat to. I should mention animal right's
> activists, and a Gov't psychiatrist who was asking for background
> information on zoophiles. Several of these people privately mailed us
> over the week-end stating what they are doing. Another asked if 'the
> zoophile has been reported to the authorities yet?' You wanted our
> attention Ritchie, now you have it!
>
> We are not concerned about that one web site if it goes down since we
> course Netcom is handy...
> We could also start posting the text on newsgroups as well. We did not
> put all our eggs in one basket on one site!
>
> Remember these posts Ritchie? I think you will have a lot more to be
> concerned over this week than one of several mirrors of a web site, you
> would best fill your time this week by shutting down your server and
>
> Domain Name: ZOOPHILE.ORG
> Administrative Contact:
> Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
> Billing Contact:
>
>
> From: protei@#########
> To: <A
> HREF="http://www.dejanews.com/profile.xp?author=ha...@zoophile.org&ST=PS"><B>hawk</B>@zoophile.org</A>
> Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 13:24:51 -0700
> Subject: my webpage...
>
> Hey <B>Hawk</B>,
>
> With regrets, I must request that you delete my site from zoophile.org.
> There are several factors which make me uncomfortable remaining there.
> It is only fair to let you know what the main factors are:
>
> 1) The sites dedicated to bestie <B>porn</B>. When the shit hits the
> fan (as it
> inevitably will), I owe it to myself and my lovers to have put as much
> distance between us and the shit as possible. It's a shame that freedom
> of expression contains so many double-standards in this country, a
> situation I'd like to see change, but I must pick and choose my battles.
> And I simply choose not to battle for <B>porn</B>. Further, it doesn't
> matter what you, <B>Eagle</B>, or
> any of the other users think is legal or should be; the only opinion I
> care about is that of the people enforcing the laws as they interpret
> them, and I
> --
We're all really scared now Zoobuster.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted using Reference.COM http://WWW.Reference.COM
FREE Usenet and Mailing list archive, directory and clipping service
--------------------------------------------------------------------
nob...@nsm.htp.org
Hash: SHA1
amz1...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> This is the second post in which I am called upon to defend myself. I prefer
> not to talk about my own personal life, details as they become divulged
You know TK, you state you prefer one thing or another, then define choice as
preferences -dictating- choice. (<Dictate> v. an authoritative command.) But if
preference -dictates- choice, then you don't give any weight to your own words.
If you prefer to not to talk about you personal life, then why did you spill
your guts to the group last fall when some flamer characterized your departure
from your parents as the act of a spoiled runaway? Were you prefering to write
the -truth- about your character?
I don't think you know what to do. You pose a rhetorical question in this
response, "Is atb here to discuss personal details of peoples lives? No- It is
here for the discussion of having sex with animals." But in several instances
throughout these threads you have felt compelled to bring personal instances of
you life to light. When I or someone else closely examines what you have written
and analyzes your words, you cry foul! You are the one that wrote them, and it
is assumed, unless you are a pathological liar, your words are true and have
relevance to your life. Are your words true? Are they relevant? Or do you prefer
not to discuss your personal life? Furthermore, if I or anyone interprets your
words in a negative light you really shriek, caterwauler even, that they are not
tethered in reality. Would you have the guts to say the exact same thing about
my analysis if I touted and praised your life and character in a positive light?
Would you argue still waaa.. you don't know all the details, thus you are
guessing and by no mean can know the truth of my character and you are cruel
biggoted and hypocritical. By your standard argument my positive "supposition"
and "supplanting" of reality is just as false as you characterize my negative
observations to be. I bet you would sing praises to the fucker who shines your
ass.
Lets give this a test drive and see how it fits.
>>"Tomokato is a zoo and he & I have a very deep and loving relationship.
>>He is currently attending school in MA until late May, when he planss to
>>move to Oregon so we can live together. His parents searched his room
>>while he was here visiting me in January, and found things about his
>>zoosexuality and letters between him and me...."
>>"At this moment he is staying with friends and will be going back to school to
finish the current semester >>unless something else changes. He has also lost
any chance of seeing Sammy, his beloved Golden >>Retriever, ever again.
Needless to say, things aren't going well."
>>
>>Tomo you are a good person, and I'm so happy you finally found a human to
fulfill your life. I know >>your move to be with K9 was a very hard choice, but
it will be worth the trouble, and that despite the >>pain I know you are feeling
about the loss of Sammy, you will survive and send for him when you are >>ready.
I know abandonment is tough to deal with and I can empathize with your
situation.
>
>Again, there are details you do not and will not know so just back off and
accept
>the fact that you cannot make an acurate judgement as to my actions or
>character.
Originally I stated in response to the above written by K9:
"Looks like you chose a human. Where's poor Sammy? Oh, that's right, languishing
at home without a sex life or his human lover. You abandoned him to the care of
your parents. You didn't consider the consequences of possessing zoo material in
your parents house. Did you consider at all such would endanger your
relationship with your dog? Oh, that's right, you were treading on the cloud of
human love."
And you responded:
>Again, there are details you do not and will not know so just back off and
accept
>the fact that you cannot make an acurate judgement as to my actions or
>character. If the situations were reversed I would never go to the trouble
> you have to make a point. I have more class than to drag a man through the
> mud to make a point, but you sir do not. You are cruel biggoted and
> hypocritical.
And in addition you make the above and other character assessments based on what
I have written. How can you know those details about me based, -gasp- on the
same medium which you refuse to acknowledge has any bearing on "accurate
judgment"? Your supplanting and supposition about my character is not tethered
in reality, "oh reality challenged." <------- Opps! Another character judgment
you made based on words written in this limited medium which no one can consider
the words written here as truthful representations of the character of the
author.
Granted, your reply was in synopsis to that portion of the thread dealing with
choice and dogs, and primarily written for brevity, but illustrates beautifully
the hole you are in. Moreover, you use the same premise throughout these
threads, and it is a premise which will bare you no fruit, friend.
I could go on with example after example of your inconsistencies. I could even
label you a hypocrite, as I believe it is justified and warranted. You ask why
I go to such great lengths to make a point and how I can drag you through the
mud without class? It is because you believe so strongly that your shoes don't
get muddy. "I have always tried to live my life the best way I know how. I have
tried always to be kind, just and truthful." Is that a true statement? Or would
I be supplanting reality again? I believe in agreeing with your statement I
would be supplanting reality. I think you are just as flawed and full of shit
as any other human on this planet, but when you have a "moral" point to make,
your butt is squeaky clean, baby. TK can do no wrong, though pushed hard enough
you will break your own rules and perjure yourself.
It really is simple, TK, if you villinize your aggressor, you can dismiss out of
hand anything they state as being cruel biggoted and hypocritical. Labels are
pretty darn convenient. You want to box me in so bad you could spit. <smile>
R.W.Z.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNcajyEjuxwPFShrOEQKdswCgooIEOVSwjuKqbfWJlOEKCC5GESQAoOQW
05jaTpMCJy8kjVHS6DAhWwez
=EtDF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
amz1...@my-dejanews.com
defend myself to RWZ.
RWZ, you and many others here have repeatedly faught to maintain the notion
that bestiality is what belongs here. If you wish to discuss the finer
points of my life you may kindly do so on another appropriate forum. I
wonder if this was what Speedy had in mind when he put forth
alt.talk.bestiality.
nob...@nsm.htp.org wrote:
> amz1...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > This is the second post in which I am called upon to defend myself. I
prefer
> > not to talk about my own personal life, details as they become divulged
>
> You know TK, you state you prefer one thing or another, then define choice as
> preferences -dictating- choice. (<Dictate> v. an authoritative command.) But
if
> preference -dictates- choice, then you don't give any weight to your own
words.
*yawn* Let us say you prefer A over B. If you take a sample of instances
where you are given a choice between A and B, more often than not, by
definition you would choose A. Preference dicates choice. (Even if dictate
is too strong a word here my point is still clear. Oh and I would prefer to
keep my life quiet yes, but when someone attacks me, I like to defend myself
though I must appologise for contributing to the noise on this group.
> I don't think you know what to do. You pose a rhetorical question in this
> response, "Is atb here to discuss personal details of peoples lives? No- It
> is here for the discussion of having sex with animals."
Apparently by continuing this thread you are demonstrating your belief that
you think it *is* here to discuss personal lives of people. That's not
really what you said before when we were discussing topics that would be
appropriate here on ATB. You change your preferences to suit you often?
Perhaps you should stop this thread and take a look at what you want this
group to be, and make it happen.
> When I or someone else closely examines what you have written [about your
>life] and analyzes your words, you cry foul! You are the one that wrote them,
>and it is assumed, unless you are a pathological liar, your words are true and
>have relevance to your life. Are your words true? Are they relevant? Or do you
>prefer not to discuss your personal life? Furthermore, if I or anyone
>interprets your words in a negative light you really shriek, caterwauler even,
>that they are not tethered in reality.
The fact remains, you lack the details necessary to make accurate judgements
about my character. It was my character you were attacking moreso than my
words was it not? How could I not protest inaccuracies in your testimony of
my character and life? I further protest your need to your supplant reality
onto my life, as you refuse to accept the limitations of your judgements and
perceptions. Many of your ideas and thoughts are simply not tethered in
reality. You might as well drop this while, to continue is only to dig the
hole deeper.
> Would you have the guts to say the exact same thing about my analysis if I >
touted and praised your life and character in a positive light?
It's never happened, but I am sure that if your praises included a false or
inaccurate basis I definately would indicate this. Are you capable of being
positive?
Here you attempt to turn things around...
Firstly, my judgements of you do not change the fact that you are posting off
topic, and you were posting without the full facts.
My judgements of you are my personal response to your attacks of my
character. The attacks are cruel, the acceptance of the mans decision to
withhold the dog because I was going out with a wannabe is biggoted and your
supplanting of reality conflicts with your said respect for truth thus making
you hypocritical. I can make these judgements based upon your words here
without knowing details of your life. You however have made assuptions about
my life in order to make the conclusions that you have about me. There's the
difference...
>Your supplanting and supposition about my character is not tethered
> in reality, "oh reality challenged." <------- Opps! Another character judgment
> you made based on words written in this limited medium which no one can
>consider the words written here as truthful representations of the character of
>the author.
In a sense you are right, however you still lacked basic facts about my life
and failed to accept the limmitations that lack of knowledge imposes upon
you.
> Granted, your reply was in synopsis to that portion of the thread dealing with
> choice and dogs, and primarily written for brevity, but illustrates
> beautifully the hole you are in.
This hole you speak of is entirely a product of your own mind. I see no hole
here other than the one your actions have dug for yourself.
> Moreover, you use the same premise throughout these threads, and it is a
> premise which will bare you no fruit, friend.
I believe that working on the basis of truth (point out where you supplant
reality) and subtance (demanding you post on topic) are quite viable and
fruitful.
> I could go on with example after example of your inconsistencies. I could
> even label you a hypocrite, as I believe it is justified and warranted.
Firstly, your statement here lacks proof and citation, secondly I never
claimed to be perfect, in fact I have publicly admitted my ignorance of the
net and of religion. In fact I have even attached the name that people here
know me by -Tomokato- to what I write and speak, I would bet dollars to
doughnuts that in other forums you use other identities.
> You ask why
> I go to such great lengths to make a point and how I can drag you through the
> mud without class? It is because you believe so strongly that your shoes
>don't get muddy.
One, this does not justify off topic posting, two this does not justify making
judgemenst without proper data. Lesson? do it in email next time.
>"I have always tried to live my life the best way I know how. I have
> tried always to be kind, just and truthful." Is that a true statement? Or
>would I be supplanting reality again? I believe in agreeing with your statement
>I would be supplanting reality.
Why bother to judge and act on a statement like that to begin with. Let the
ambiguity rest, accept your limitations of knowledge and reality. You would
probably have to know me in real life for you to be justified in being
comfortable with that statement. I was just being honest in how I view
myself and the was I view my place int he world. People that do know me, can
vouch for that statements validity- You, cannot.
>I think you are just as flawed and full of shit as any other human on this
>planet,
Ahhhh, but I admit it, I dont go making halfassed judgements like you. I
guess I'm not as full of shit as "any" other human... just some.
> but when you have a "moral" point to make, your butt is squeaky clean, baby.
> TK can do no wrong,
I have admitted to making mistakes, so your effort is lost, look at the public
record here.
> It really is simple, TK, if you villinize your aggressor, you can dismiss out
> of hand anything they state as being cruel biggoted and hypocritical. Labels
> are pretty darn convenient. You want to box me in so bad you could spit.
> <smile>
>
> R.W.Z.
I know enough about you RWZ that I know I do not trust your judgement nor do
I expect honest straightforward dialectic from you. I expect you have a hard
time admitting your short commings and limitations. These are some of the
things you have evidence through your off topic posts to me. I have not
labeled you in my mind, other than stating the obvious, to me you are this
set of probablities...
30% someone I do not know/70% someone I do know (from the net)
40% using own persona and identity/60% using an assumed persona and identity
10% concerned citizen of ATB out to protect others from this TK person/ 40%
concerned about maintaining image of RWZ guruness/ 30% using assumed persona
to enact revenge or vent anger against me personally/ 20% blindly arguing for
the sake of argument
<shrugs> I'm sure you fall into those categories somewhere, to me it really
doesn't matter, as long as you let the thread die and post about bestiality
like you are supposed to here.
TK
amz1...@my-dejanews.com
>
> amz1...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <6pvulo$rq3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >> amz1...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > You are right, one paticular person's behavior sparked the whole thing
> for
> >> > me. He was acting in a way that I had seen others act before here on
> atb.
> >He
> >> > had called off what seemed like a close friendship to me for, among
> other
> >> > reasons, the fact that I was going out with someone who he considered
> to be
> >a
> >> > wannabe.
>
> Hmm ... no, I don't consider him to be a wannabe. He *is* a wannabe .. by
> your own admission and his. He has never had sex with animals, nor does he
> seem inclined to (aside from cheap words on talkers). Ergo, wannabe (:
It's not the label so much as what it implies- that he'd be molesting the
dog. That's what the man who withheld the dog did with that label, carying it
a bit too far. To me, sex with an animal, when both parties are willing
participants is not molestation. Assuming that the dog would be molested by
this individual is an example of his fantisies being superimposed over
reality.
> >> > Thus, the label thread. I was angry that such bullshit was around
> >> > and wanted to seek out the source, it's not what I expected actually.
> >>
> >> Except such isn't BS. Your focus throughout your history on the net is
> the
> >> pursuit of a human lover.
> >
> >I still have had, and have animals in my life... My focus has been
> contacting
> >people through the net.. animals certainly can use CPUs
>
> Ah, I see ... degenerating into semantics again? Humans are animals in the
> broad sense of the word, yes, but here it is used to designate non-humans.
> And while all three of my dogs have, on occasion, put paws on my keyboard,
> they don't do it regularly, nor do I have 1,000 of them (if 1,000 monkeys
> produce Shakespeare, what to 1,000 dogs produce?)
Acutally I was making the point that dogs can't use cpus... to say "Of
course I use the net to meet people, you certainly can't use it effectively
to find dogs" Sorry for the confusion.
> >>You are angry your friend called a
> >> spade a spade, and the truth often hurts.
> >
> >No, losing a friendship that had been built over the course of 3 years, and
> a
> >dog that I had known for 2 hurt. All for someone's pride and hasty
> thinking,
> >borderline bigotry... perhaps he was a bit posessive of me too, I have no
> way
> >of knowing, I cannot read minds, but him hanging the dog over my head using
> >him to get at me was quite low.
>
> Ah, yes, that tired refrain again. Seems to me I lost a good friend and
> former lover because I placed what I perceive to be the well-being of a dog
> above our human relationship. Tell me, TK, how is declaring 'your' dog
> (that I've fed, housed, looked after, etc for 2 years) to be mine likely to
> increase our friendship, or hold him over your head? He's mine now .. you
> made no attempt to find a home for him, so I did. Finit. I freely admit my
> action was precipitated by your taking up with a wannabe. I have no
> intention of allowing a lovable fool of a dog to be molested by him.
I did not intend for your name to come up publically, and I am sorry that this
is the way you view things. We covered about as much as we can possibly cover
on all points in email. I still do not understand your actions. If you
question why I think you put the dog over my head, check out that first smail
you sent me.
And for the record, though they were half hearted attempts, we both made an
effort to find him a home, on no less than three occasions I had possibilities
that turned sour. I wish the best for you and that lovable fool of a dog.
TK
> >> It means once again those that have not do not understand or respect
> those
> >> that have.
> >
> >Wrong, but you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, as it doesn't affect
> me
> >one bit. (aside from puzzlement and anger) What I have no respect for is
> >bullshit, hastey thinging and anger that is simply there for anger's sake.
>
> No respect for bullshit? Hmm .. doesn't leave much room for the wannabe
> then. Oh, and the word is hasty, btw (:
>
> Cor in Archenland
>
> "I think *true* happiness can only be found in the wanton indulgence of
> animals." Hobbes.
Anonymous
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 01 Aug 1998 00:28:13 GMT FuzzFuck wrote:
> You've proved yourself as such, as well as a liar
>and a hypocrite. I've proven this many times before.
>How many more examples do we need here?
I have noticed it doesn't matter who says what to you. The fact that
you don't belong here is evidently clear to myself, and from what
those that have bothered to reply to your posts have said, I am not
alone in this evaluation.
You act the child that has nothing better to say than "I know you are,
but what am I?" I will answer that for you in pure plain simple
English.
You are a self-centered egotistical psychotic furry phool with a
holier than thou attitude that thinks his own shit doesn't stink that
has nothing to offer this newsgroup other than your own off topic
agenda.
I guess there is only one cure for clueless people like you. Kill
filters.
Just to let you know where you are on the social ladder here, even
Zoowolf, Equamour, and Zoobuster are above you. You are worse
than the Trolls and mass spammers.
To put it in trucker's terms, go the fuck away.
I will also point out, that there are no questions for your tiny mind
in this post so you have no reason to reply. I won't read nor reply to
any of your responses anyway. But maybe I hit the real truth with my
last post to you as you never denied anything I said.
I am beginning to think that you are a CalZoo agent. Here with
relentless spamming, with a very visible dislike for PN. I figure you
are just a CZ puppet.
Sanford G. Fogg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNcUbU14fuMHSo6RNEQLocQCgvyL/MrmyhAIbCN/d2tfaLBF7S3wAn0HO
Prz1jUuAxWyhetL9C9SE2UYx
=5/a4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Cor in Archenland
>> Hmm ... no, I don't consider him to be a wannabe. He *is* a wannabe ..
by
>> your own admission and his. He has never had sex with animals, nor does
he
>> seem inclined to (aside from cheap words on talkers). Ergo, wannabe (:
>
>It's not the label so much as what it implies- that he'd be molesting the
>dog. That's what the man who withheld the dog did with that label, carying
it
>a bit too far. To me, sex with an animal, when both parties are willing
>participants is not molestation. Assuming that the dog would be molested
by
>this individual is an example of his fantisies being superimposed over
>reality.
If you feel this is incorrect, you should ask your bf what his comments were
in one particular talker, when he was discussing, in the main room, you two
moving in together "to a place that we can keep dogs." The essence
distilled down to "then I'll be able to try it, because the dog's already
trained for sex." (not exact words, but I'm sure, with some time and more
effort than I feel its worth, I could pull a log file up).
However, that being said,
<snip>
>And for the record, though they were half hearted attempts, we both made an
>effort to find him a home, on no less than three occasions I had
possibilities
>that turned sour. I wish the best for you and that lovable fool of a dog.
>
>TK
And, as I've said before in email, I wish the best for you in turn.
However, with all due respect, I will not rescind my label of 'wannabe' from
your bf, as it is both descriptive and highly applicable.
Take care, TK.
Wolf
> I am beginning to think that you are a CalZoo agent. Here with
> relentless spamming, with a very visible dislike for PN. I figure you
> are just a CZ puppet.
Wow, CZ has "agents" now... Why am I always the last to hear about these
things? You're really reachin' now...
I, for one, don't dislike PN. I often agree with many things he says,
just not the way he says it.
--
Wolf
Wolf
I've known Wolfheart for about 3 years. He's never stabbed me in my
back.
--
Wolf
zoow...@aol.com
That's the thing with the internet, Who is this guy who steps forward with
the supposed identity of R.W.Z. and A human that has sex with animals?
Their identities (all three) are less interesting than the fact they choose to
hide behind anonymity.
zoow...@aol.com
>
> >> Hmm ... no, I don't consider him to be a wannabe. He *is* a wannabe ..
> by
> >> your own admission and his. He has never had sex with animals, nor does
> he
> >> seem inclined to (aside from cheap words on talkers). Ergo, wannabe (:
A wannabe then is someone that has not had sex with animals and wants to be a
zoo? or wants to have sex with animals? Well hell, what were we before we
'experimented'? And it still does not imply a desire to force sexual
encounters on an unwilling dog (molestation.)
> >It's not the label so much as what it implies- that he'd be molesting the
> >dog. That's what the man who withheld the dog did with that label, carying
> it
> >a bit too far. To me, sex with an animal, when both parties are willing
> >participants is not molestation. Assuming that the dog would be molested
> by
> >this individual is an example of his fantisies being superimposed over
> >reality.
>
> If you feel this is incorrect, you should ask your bf what his comments were
> in one particular talker, when he was discussing, in the main room, you two
> moving in together "to a place that we can keep dogs." The essence
> distilled down to "then I'll be able to try it, because the dog's already
> trained for sex." (not exact words, but I'm sure, with some time and more
> effort than I feel its worth, I could pull a log file up).
He never mentioned to me ever wanting to try things out on the dog. The
phrase "trained for sex" is very bothersome however as is spouting things off
in the main room. I wonder what his words really were. Odd you never
mentioned this in email as part of your rationale. What is done is done
however.
Tall Thin Jones
> In fact, Equamour and that character who kills dogs are the only
> two I have known of for a while who have problems with their animals
> having sex with other humans, other than the safety issues.
Eq> Well, actually I have read things about people not liking others
Eq> having sex with their animals, and with me, Bud is like my human wife,
Eq> I love her as such, and I go by the human thing of sex with ones wife
Eq> and not to share them. MAYBE if I knew someone real well, and really
Eq> cared for them, who know, but I doubt it still.
Your original statement was that it was taboo to have sex with
animals belonging to other zoophiles. That was news to me. There are
some individuals who don't want their animals having sex with others,
and I respect that. But, these people are in the minority. So, it's
not a taboo. It is an individual thing.
... Like dumpster-diving behind the nuclear plant...
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR]
Tall Thin Jones
to "A_human who has sex with animals":
Right now the best way to help Equamour is to tell him to go fuck
himself.
No, really. Every attempt to do anything for him backfires.
Letting him alone is the best way. It might even work.
Anonymous
> Your original statement was that it was taboo to have sex with
> animals belonging to other zoophiles.
I originally said it is taboo to ask to have sex with anothers animals. From
what I have seen and experienced, to ask is frowned upon, but to be offered is
a different story. I have offered my animals to several people. I will almost
always flatly refuse a direct request.
> That was news to me. There are
> some individuals who don't want their animals having sex with others,
> and I respect that. But, these people are in the minority. So, it's
> not a taboo. It is an individual thing.
I agree. It is an individual thing and I wasn't trying to imply that people
that share their animals were a majority or minority. Not many zoos that I
know, however, will offer their animal sexually to a complete stranger. That
was the point I was making. I have been offered, and I have accepted sex with
other peoples animals. But, there is one mare of mine, that Is not likely to be
offered to any. They would have to be a close personal friend for me to trust
them enough with this mare that holds a special place in my heart.
Sanford G. Fogg
at hot male dog cum
Anonymous
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 05 Aug 1998 07:00:58 GMT, zoow...@aol.com wrote:
>In article <6q8e7i$35v$1...@bashir.ici.net>,
> "Cor in Archenland" <ce...@connix.com> wrote:
>> amz1...@my-dejanews.com wrote ...
>>
>> >> Hmm ... no, I don't consider him to be a wannabe. He *is* a
>> >> wannabe .. by your own admission and his. He has never had
>> >> sex with animals, nor does he seem inclined to
>> >> (aside from cheap words on talkers). Ergo, wannabe (:
>
>A wannabe then is someone that has not had sex with animals and wants
>to be a zoo? or wants to have sex with animals? Well hell,
>what were we before we 'experimented'.
I would think that is obvious.
Zoowolf. What brings you back? You have your own group so make use of
it. I have redirected those I consider wannabe's and furries
to your group and have avoided it myself out of courtesy. Can you not
extend the same courtesy to ATB?
<snip>
In article <MPG.103179b21...@news.pacbell.net>,
wlf...@hotmail.com (Wolf) wrote:
> On 3 Aug 1998 14:16:41 GMT, m...@foobar.com (m...@foobar.com) said...
<snip>
>That's the thing with the internet, Who is this guy who steps
>forward with the supposed identity of R.W.Z. and A human that
>has sex with animals?
>Their identities (all three) are less interesting than the fact they
>choose to hide behind anonymity.
This has already been discussed. Is your memory that short zoowolf.
Re: The death of Zoophile.org
Message-ID: <1998040801...@basement.replay.com>
you wrote:
>Hey Anonymous,
>You are a pathetic, cowardly asshole! Why are you so afraid
>to identify who you really are.
I do. Better than you in fact.
And another answer was in ..
Subject: Re: The death of Zoophile.org
From: cam...@sofnet.com (Caballito)
Date: 1998/04/08
Message-ID: <352ad2cd...@NEWS.SOFNET.COM>
zoowolf's ranting snipped
Hossie:
Geez, aint it a bitch having a name that begins with Z? I mean, all
through grade school, you were probably last in line for lunch,
recess, and Christmas goodies; you probably even had your desk
positioned in the rear of the classroom which made it convenient for
wanking off during boring lessons, such as grammar. All your life
you'll be at the end of the alphabet with concomitant discrimination
against you. Plus, i'm sure many people laugh at you behind your back
for the funny name.
Oh.
You mean Zoowolf isn't your real name? It's an alias? That's
almost like... anonymous... isn't it?
There's no need to detail the good and rational reasons for
many people maintaining their anonymity in this group. Cowardice is
not necessarily one of them. Just to make you feel better I will
issue you One Official Hossie Bash, and not do so anonymously.
Did you notice that Jeffrey Angus bashed you and signed his
real name? He even signs with his amateur radio callsign, which to
those in the know, will give you not only his real name, but his
mailing address.
Is your name actually zoowolf? No.
I am a human that has sex with animals. Is that my real life name? No.
It is what I do. I have sex with animals. ( oh the horror. I engage in
bestiality)
*snicker*
A_human that has sex with animals.
a_human <at> usa <dot> net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.5 for non-commercial use <http://www.nai.com>
iQA/AwUBNci5uMHobftZ/r9eEQL/HQCgonbZIgTDUpSvnY0yhL4Mgfl+bf8AniEk
KH7wmaYU+DabUa3JDhUbtlwl
=14Fu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Cor in Archenland
Anonymous wrote in message <1998080616...@replay.com>...
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Wed, 05 Aug 1998 07:00:58 GMT, zoow...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>In article <6q8e7i$35v$1...@bashir.ici.net>,
>> "Cor in Archenland" <ce...@connix.com> wrote:
>>> amz1...@my-dejanews.com wrote ...
>>>
>>> >> Hmm ... no, I don't consider him to be a wannabe. He *is* a
>>> >> wannabe .. by your own admission and his. He has never had
>>> >> sex with animals, nor does he seem inclined to
>>> >> (aside from cheap words on talkers). Ergo, wannabe (:
>>
>>A wannabe then is someone that has not had sex with animals and wants
>>to be a zoo? or wants to have sex with animals? Well hell,
>>what were we before we 'experimented'.
>
>I would think that is obvious.
Indeed is it. I would add, though, that Zoopuppy has ignored the second
part of my definition ... "nor does he seem inclined to, apart from cheap
words on talkers." This is as opposed with posers, who use the cheap words
on talkers (or, given the post RWZ and I are responding to here, on USENET)
to say they do have sex with animals (like 17yo wolves) and actually don't
(:
>Zoowolf. What brings you back? You have your own group so make use of
>it. I have redirected those I consider wannabe's and furries
>to your group and have avoided it myself out of courtesy. Can you not
>extend the same courtesy to ATB?
Lack of courtesy and netiquette seems to be a defining characteristic of the
young and posing.
Pristan Etallion
->A wannabe then is someone that has not had sex with animals and wants to be a
->zoo? or wants to have sex with animals? Well hell, what were we before we
->'experimented'?
A prepubescent elementary schoolboy before... and afterwards as well.
I hope you aren't dating any.
->What is done is done however.
Indeed. I notice you didn't sign this one, though both TK and the
Gameboy tend to do so. You never responded to my comments about
gender usage early on in this business either. Another attempt
to confuse people? Which "zoowolf" took the others name?
PN
--
Our deeds determine us, as much as we determine our deeds.
(George Eliot)
Tall Thin Jones
An> Our intent is to shut zoophile's promotional web sites and their
An> forums. And while Hawk may be successful in closing our web site, we
An> simply will open another one elsewhere within 24 hours on another
An> provider- overseas if need be.
So shall we. For every site you close down, two more shall open
up. They shall bear your name in the credits, as one great inspiration
to defend freedom.
An> The email bombs by rac...@aol.com and others, as well as threats by
An> several, already have shown your group to be a menacing subversive
An> one in forums where these items have been republished.
The mail bombs and threats are lies that you have concocted.
>The counts of libel were in direct reference to statements he made about Hawk
>and myself
An> And the 127 archived posts in dejanews, including your newsletter
An> text offering cd's for sale- regarding your domain zoophile.org are
An> also 'libel' and slander too I suppose...
I have to give you credit there, though. I didn't even see
embellishment in your reporting of the zoophool.org incident. Of
course, not embellishment was needed. Eagle and Hawk, BTW, are not
considered representative of zoophiles. I don't think they even have
sex with animals.
An> This is true there are a number who are not only 'threatening', but
An> are actively reporting to the Conroe TX agencies and others.
I'll bet they're getting tired of humoring you, too.
See any twitching in that corpse you saved? She might be coming
back to life. How many zoophiles do you need to sacrifice to your
volcano god? Eagle and Hawk won't do you any good. They're not
zoophiles.
You've been sounding so rational in your psychopathy, too. It
won't last, though. In a few months this one will run its course and
you will be suicidal again, you'll hate the people who are handling you
now, and you will probably steal all the wrought iron from the church
before you burn it down. You're a ticking time bomb, and when you go
off, I hope the church is holding you.
Tall Thin Jones
An> In addition, you're now attracting full attention to zoophile.org by
An> an animal right's activist/ software piracy investigator who is going
An> to research your connections and domain, but also by the equine rescue
An> group to whom you sent a threat to.
This is your favorite part, isn't it? You send threats to people,
faking other people's net addresses, and they get in trouble.
Pristan Etallion
->This group is the antithesis of what SSZ was supposed to be.
I always thought of it as being the antithesis of ALF... but other
than moderation... I really see no difference between those two.
PN
--
Good taste and humor are a contradiction in terms, like a chaste whore.
(Malcom Muggeridge)
Pristan Etallion
->I, for one, don't dislike PN.
I must be losing my touch.
->I often agree with many things he says, just not the way he says it.
At least I'm doing something right then.
PN
--
What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think.
(Emerson)
Pristan Etallion
->That's the thing with the internet, Who is this guy who steps forward with
->the supposed identity of R.W.Z. and A human that has sex with animals?
Are you implying that they are one and the same?
->That's the thing with the internet, Who is this guy who steps forward with
->the supposed identity of R.W.Z. and A human that has sex with animals?
Someones with a decent posting history here.
->Their identities (all three) are less interesting than the fact they choose
->to hide behind anonymity.
Yes, their RL names are unimportant since the fact that they choose to
protect their animals, from the dogzoos, the equamorons, and the
Forest Phools that inhabit the net, shows their heart is in the
right place.
PN
--
Others go to bed with their mistresses; I with my ideas.
(Jose Marti)
Pristan Etallion
->Is your name actually zoowolf? No.
Actually I believe it's TK. His amz10860 posts originated at AOL.
Why he would send out articles unsigned with a "zoowolf" I leave
to your own speculation. You might recall his earlier gender
'confusion' early on during his arrival here as amz10860...
Unlike you, he doesn't apppear to be living with any animals that
he needs to protect however...
PN
--
Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.
(George Washington)
equa...@zoophile.org
tall...@irs.com (Tall Thin Jones) wrote:
>
> to "A_human who has sex with animals":
>
> Right now the best way to help Equamour is to tell him to go fuck
> himself.
I think the BEST way to help me is to tell me to go fuck my mare.. :) And
maybe help get me in a possition where I do not need to fear the cops and
beable to fuck her, but thats just my opinion.
> No, really. Every attempt to do anything for him backfires.
> Letting him alone is the best way. It might even work.
I did help Hossie out when I lived there, drove him where he needed to go.
Things were not perfect but they also were not all bad. But I told a friend I
would do my best to stay off of ATB, so I will do my best.
Equamour
> ... Like dumpster-diving behind the nuclear plant...
>
> ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR]
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Anonymous
> Is there any similarity between what directs a person to bestiality and what
> directs a person to paedophilia ?
Could tell you. You are asking the wrong group. You should talk to the shrinks
or some other person that may have studied both. I am not a pedophile, nor do I
associate with them, so I wouldn't have a comparison base. I love animals,
because I don't know many that lie. That is just one plus in their favor.
Sanford G. Fogg
Anonymous
From: Anonymous <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: 1998/02/28
Newsgroups: alt.talk.bestiality
Please note that this issue is not complete; worse yet, some
information has gone out of date. I will update as soon as I get a
chance; sorry for the inconvenience.
_________________________________________________________________
Eagle Eyes
Volume 1, Issue #4 - Winter 1997/1998
Publisher: The Eagle
TABLE OF CONTENTS
In this issue:
* www.zoophile.org: The first and only home for zoophiles on the web
by Eagle
About average horsepeople and zoophiles by Einhorn Servant
Eagle Report: What's new at Eagle Eyes, plus a special message for all
my readers! by Eagle
Chirpings: The Eagle Eyes zoo personals
Feathertickles by Eagle
_________________________________________________________________
Eagle Eyes is a magazine discussing zoophilia and related issues that
constantly seeks to improve itself and grow. There is no charge for
subscribing or using any of its services (including placing zoo
personal ads). Likewise, there is nothing paid for article submissions
except the gratitude of myself and all my readers.
Eagle Eyes is "public domain." This means you are free to copy and
distribute it as you see fit. I only ask that if you do so, you follow
two basic promises: 1. That you do not intentionally distribute Eagle
Eyes to anyone for whom it is illegal to distribute to (i.e. minors).
2. That you do not post Eagle Eyes, in whole or in part, to any USENET
newsgroup. I have personal reasons why I do not want it published
there. You can quote sections and the like, but there are groups of
zoos who frequent Usenet that are offended by my work (why they don't
get as offended by Spam and flames, I'll never know).
_________________________________________________________________
www.zoophile.org
The Only Home For Zoophiles On The Web
All over the web, zoophiles' webpages have vanished because their
hosts disapproved of zoo content, or because they consume too much
bandwidth (bandwidth is the amount of data that can be moved at one
time). Even Stasya's webpage, considered by some as a cornerstone of
the zoophile web community, vanished because it consumed too much
bandwidth.
The need for a non-commercial web server owned and operated by
zoophiles for zoophiles became quite clear. At long last, such a web
server came online.
Several months in the making, www.zoophile.org is a major effort put
forth by Hawk to provide free unlimited webspace for zoophiles, with
full FTP access for each user to their own directory. Before the
server even "officially" went online and gained a static IP, 20 users
had their webpages in place upon it (including myself). On February
19, the server finally officially went online. Although the server was
placed on a full ISDN line, anonymous FTP access to zoo porn pictures
had to be disabled to conserve bandwidth for the explected flood of
hits. CD-Rs of every picture on the FTP site including a significant
number of newly-acquired pictures and movies are offered in place of
anonymous FTP access, for sale at $50 each. Although the price is
steep compared to the usual charge of nothing, it is meant to serve as
funding for the http server (which is to remain free).
Of course, the server is not free to those who run it. All in all,
going online with an ISDN line cost $2,000 initially and roughly $300
per month to maintain. Myself and Hawk are splitting the costs, and
are hoping people will buy the CD's to offset it. Regardless, the
webpages will remain free.
The webserver will always be free to those who hold their webpages on
it and those who use it. The anonymous FTP server, as popular as it
is, is considered secondary. There are several zoo porn FTP sites in
existence now, but no zoo http servers.
Information about getting your own zoophile webpage may be obtained by
visiting the website at http://www.zoophile.org or by e-mailing the
server owner and administrator.
BE CAREFULL OUT THERE, THEY HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO THE SHERIFF AND POLICE
DEPT AND YOUR ACCOUNT COULD BE SEIZED!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.5 for non-commercial use <http://www.nai.com>
vDN/NjHOAohDsRdTCdfiUDYURDYYgjPt05e+9/AFzL3O2mWY1esStS6dQsfNavg0
oR4E/1qkshpLFGZgBGbdHPgY
=5FSi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Anonymous
> Feb 23 20:20) From Eagle: To shame!!! Nobody has asked us anything
about
this!
> I just now goto wind of it! Folks: [1] there is NOTHING I have seen
to
indic
> ate selling cd's of zoorotic porn is illegal ... this is zoorotic porn,
not
best
> ial. I know there is no legal distinction, but we make it a point to
erase
any
> images in which an animal is forced into an act. [2] Our users have
NOTHING
to
> do with these CD's. They simply pay for our equipment. Even if it were
illegal
> , which I doubt, the only ones who will take a fall for it are Hawk and
myself.
>
> (Feb 23 20:22) From Eagle: [3] There are NUMEROUS companies in the
business
of s
> elling bestiality videos / CDs inside the U.S.
> (Feb 23 20:25) From Eagle: Obviously, this has suddenly disturbed a lot
of
peopl
> e, and I take great appreciation of that fact. We have been offering
these
CD's
> ... even posted an ad here in the Forest if I recall ... since last
November.
> It was very public, nobody said anything. Now all of a sudden there is
a
proble
> m. I ask if anyone out there has the resources to pull off putting up a
project
> like this with no outside funding? Because we have sold no CD's so
far,
Hawk
> and I have had to. We have put a lot of hard work into this project and
do
>
> (Feb 23 20:26) From Eagle: not want it destroyed by paranoia. If you
have a
pro
> blem with -any- part of the way we handle things, PLEASE e-mail us
(root@zoophil
> e.org) and we'll talk about it. It is very frustrating to have some
backroom di
> scussion that seems to have the goal of undermining our efforts.
>
> (Feb 23 20:29) From Eagle: We may eventually pull the offer anyhow. If
all
user
> s are against it, let us know! We may pull the sale, we simply could
not
antici
> pate this sudden shift. I can't make any promises though, we are
looking
into a
> lternative funding options anyway (since selling CD's flat out isn't
working), a
> nd whatever it takes we will stay online.
AS ANYONE CAN PLAINLY SEE, ANONZOO IS EAGLE, WHO IS THE SAME EAGLE WHO
RUNS ZOOPHILE.ORG
Subject: The truth about Eagle...
From: Ano...@rocketmail.com
Date: 1998/02/23
Newsgroups: alt.talk.bestiality
If you clicked on this looking for the truth then you've fallen into 'the
trap' ... a good portion of the time something is said about someone
(else,
but not necessarily) it is untrue.
Only thing I can prove here is that I -am- the notorious Eagle. I still
retain my Ano...@rocketmail.com address. Its so heavily spammed at this
point, trying to cloak it is useless.
<SNIP>
As for the legality of the CD's, I saw nothing mentioned that offered
direct evidence it is a federal crime. I am looking into federal law,
however. Rest assured, however, even if it is illegal (which I highly
doubt), Hawk and myself bear full responsibility. We maintain no records
of who we sell the CD's to, and as for the rumor that people on our e-mail
contact lists or our server users will be investigated ... how often do
the feds go through a convict's address book and arrest everyone for
associating with them? None of our users are involved with the CD's, and
as for Actaeon's videos, those are not 'bestiality' to my knowledge, as
they involve no humans. I'm willing to risk incarceration. Sites selling
bestial/zoorotic porn such as www.farmsex.com have been around for quite
awhile. However, I'll wait to finish this until I have investigated
federal law ... it could all be for naught.
YOU MEAN YOU DIDN'T CHECK OUT THE FEDERAL LAWS BEFORE YOU ADVERTISED THIS
PORN FOR SALE AND INVOLVED DOZENS MAYBE MORE OF US ZOOPHILES AND A FEW
ZOOPHOOLS IN YOUR HAIRBRAINED SCHEME??
<And, just out of curiosity, what exactlty is meant by 'Eagle is bad
<news'?
WELL IF WE HAVE TO SPELL IT OUT FOR THE CLUELESS, IF THE FEDS BUST THESE
TWO BIRDBRAINS, YOU AND YOUR ACCOUNT GET SCREWED BIGTIME!
<- Eagle
< w w w . z o o p h i l e . o r g
< By zoophiles ... for zoophiles.
zoow...@aol.com
... zoow...@aol.com, in my haste to get out the door I neglected to make
sure I was logged in properly to dejanews to make the replys. My appologies
for the confusion, but let me also point out that, this is another example of
your hastey decision making. Take a chill pill, sit back, relax and enjoy
life...
In article <1998080616...@replay.com>,
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 05 Aug 1998 07:00:58 GMT, zoow...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >In article <6q8e7i$35v$1...@bashir.ici.net>,
> > "Cor in Archenland" <ce...@connix.com> wrote:
> >> amz1...@my-dejanews.com wrote ...
> >>
> >> >> Hmm ... no, I don't consider him to be a wannabe. He *is* a
> >> >> wannabe .. by your own admission and his. He has never had
> >> >> sex with animals, nor does he seem inclined to
> >> >> (aside from cheap words on talkers). Ergo, wannabe (:
> >
> >A wannabe then is someone that has not had sex with animals and wants
> >to be a zoo? or wants to have sex with animals? Well hell,
> >what were we before we 'experimented'.
>
> I would think that is obvious.
Actually in this context, it is not because my bf has not had sex with
animals yet he is labeled a wannabe, was this your exact status before your
first sexual encounter with an animal? If so, then would you also take it
that one step farther saying that a wannabe can only molest animals? Do you
molest animals? I for one do not believe two willing partners engaging in
sex to be a molestation of any kind regardless of the species.
TK
> *snicker*
>
> A_human that has sex with animals.
>
> a_human <at> usa <dot> net
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
zoow...@aol.com
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >On Wed, 05 Aug 1998 07:00:58 GMT, zoow...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >>In article <6q8e7i$35v$1...@bashir.ici.net>,
> >> "Cor in Archenland" <ce...@connix.com> wrote:
> >>> amz1...@my-dejanews.com wrote ...
> >>>
> >>> >> Hmm ... no, I don't consider him to be a wannabe. He *is* a
> >>> >> wannabe .. by your own admission and his. He has never had
> >>> >> sex with animals, nor does he seem inclined to
> >>> >> (aside from cheap words on talkers). Ergo, wannabe (:
> >>
> >>A wannabe then is someone that has not had sex with animals and wants
> >>to be a zoo? or wants to have sex with animals? Well hell,
> >>what were we before we 'experimented'.
> >
> >I would think that is obvious.
>
> part of my definition ... "nor does he seem inclined to, apart from cheap
> words on talkers." This is as opposed with posers, who use the cheap words
> on talkers (or, given the post RWZ and I are responding to here, on USENET)
> to say they do have sex with animals (like 17yo wolves) and actually don't
> (:
>
> >Zoowolf. What brings you back? You have your own group so make use of
> >it. I have redirected those I consider wannabe's and furries
> >to your group and have avoided it myself out of courtesy. Can you not
> >extend the same courtesy to ATB?
>
> Lack of courtesy and netiquette seems to be a defining characteristic of the
> young and posing.
>
> Cor in Archenland
>
> "I think *true* happiness can only be found in the wanton indulgence of
> animals." Hobbes.
>
A couple quick notes, that was my account on aol, was not logged into deja
news properly, did you notice the phrase "odd that you did not mention this
in your emails...." That was to you Cor, and I think I am the only one you
had emailed to about this topic.
In addition, the second part of your definition "nor does he seem to be
inclined to" is irrelevant to the issue as to whether or not the dog was in
danger of being molested. As I said to you twice before, whether or not he
is zoo is not important, what is important is that he recognise and accept
that I will be sexually active with animals. I am more than willing to give
him room to explore himself without placing expecations and hoops for him to
jump through along the way.
The only shred of a hint that he would molest the dog is your implication
that he talked of the dog being trained. Even this is questionable proof,
wording is very delicate, and even if he used the word "trained" would it
mean that he would force himeself on the dog? You have seen with your own
eyes Cor, what he does when I walk into a room alone, there's also the
example of your dingo-dog, who is very familiar with illiciting sex from
humans. Unless there's food in nose-shot, he's a willing participant with
any willing hand.
TK
djali
: I think the BEST way to help me is to tell me to go fuck my mare.. :) And
: maybe help get me in a possition where I do not need to fear the cops and
: beable to fuck her, but thats just my opinion.
You also think its ok to out for simple little things like an irc channel
ban. Its quite apparent your opinion is lacking in many essential ways.
: I did help Hossie out when I lived there, drove him where he needed to go.
yea driving him around makes up for the bailing out he had to d ofrom the
hosptital. or the fire. etc.
: Things were not perfect but they also were not all bad. But I told a friend I
: would do my best to stay off of ATB, so I will do my best.
looks like your best is falling short.
how very typical.
djali
: This is actually quite funny, I have an account over at AOL, from a ways back
: ... zoow...@aol.com, in my haste to get out the door I neglected to make
: sure I was logged in properly to dejanews to make the replys. My appologies
: for the confusion, but let me also point out that, this is another example of
: your hastey decision making. Take a chill pill, sit back, relax and enjoy
: life...
If I logged into a talker as Eq or Pristan etc etc itd wouldnt be funny.
and I think its in rather poor taste to continue to post as such.
Cor in Archenland
>My appologies
>for the confusion, but let me also point out that, this is another example
of
>your hastey decision making. Take a chill pill, sit back, relax and enjoy
>life...
And you are still mis-spelling hasty :P
Cor in Archenland
>A couple quick notes, that was my account on aol, was not logged into deja
>news properly, did you notice the phrase "odd that you did not mention this
>in your emails...." That was to you Cor, and I think I am the only one you
>had emailed to about this topic.
I merely assumed that, given your past history of divulving personal
information about me, you had continued on with cc'ing my email around.
>In addition, the second part of your definition "nor does he seem to be
>inclined to" is irrelevant to the issue as to whether or not the dog was in
>danger of being molested. As I said to you twice before, whether or not he
>is zoo is not important, what is important is that he recognise and accept
>that I will be sexually active with animals. I am more than willing to
give
>him room to explore himself without placing expecations and hoops for him
to
>jump through along the way.
Great! Fine! But are you then being more concerned with him than with any
of your animal lovers you let him 'explore' with? I think so.
>The only shred of a hint that he would molest the dog is your implication
>that he talked of the dog being trained. Even this is questionable proof,
>wording is very delicate, and even if he used the word "trained" would it
>mean that he would force himeself on the dog? You have seen with your own
>eyes Cor, what he does when I walk into a room alone, there's also the
>example of your dingo-dog, who is very familiar with illiciting sex from
>humans. Unless there's food in nose-shot, he's a willing participant with
>any willing hand.
>
>TK
>
Never said either of them wouldn't jump on any available ass and hump away.
What I did do is object to the implication that an animal lover is trained
to be a sex object -- and hence available for 'exploration'.
Oh, and I'm presuming you meant 'soliciting' rather than 'illiciting' above.
Unless, of course, you were fooling around with my horses behind my back --
that I would refer to as 'illicit'. Hmm ... just why *did* you start
screwing your sister's horse?
Pristan Etallion
->BE CAREFULL OUT THERE, THEY HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO THE SHERIFF AND POLICE
->DEPT AND YOUR ACCOUNT COULD BE SEIZED!
->
->-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
->Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.5 for non-commercial use <http://www.nai.com>
->
->vDN/NjHOAohDsRdTCdfiUDYURDYYgjPt05e+9/AFzL3O2mWY1esStS6dQsfNavg0
->oR4E/1qkshpLFGZgBGbdHPgY
->=5FSi
->-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hmm. Speaking in caps and fucked up the pgp message signing...
What phool might this be... ;)
PN
--
Life is like a B-picture script. It is that corny. If I had my life
story offered to me on film, I'd turn it down.
(Kirk Douglas)
If I had my film offered me to live, I'd take it up.
(pn)
Anonymous
Hash: SHA1
Path:news12.ispnews.com!news3.ispnews.com!hub1.ispnews.com!news11.ispn
ws.com!news1.ispnews.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!20
.238.120.130!news
feeds.jump.net!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail
From: zoow...@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.talk.bestiality
Subject: Re: none
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 07:00:58 GMT
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <6q8vvb$qq6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
References: <1998080113...@replay.com>
<6pvulo$rq3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6q27r0$cpl$1...@bashir.ici.net>
<6q8e7i$35v$1...@bashir.ici.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.172.219.130
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Aug 05 07:00:58 1998 GMT
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.01 [en] (Win95; I)
Xref: news12.ispnews.com alt.talk.bestiality:4275
I was wondering if this was the always well recieved zoopuppy. But,.
before I could
slam him, I was notified differently.
- -> Corarch tells you: Well, as he used to email me using his aol
account, and he was posting in dejanews from an aol ip, I actually
assumed it was him ... but this way I got to insult both Zoopuppy
and him (although somewhat obliquely) in the same post (:
Sanford G. Fogg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNcuc8l4fuMHSo6RNEQKNtgCgyl6J8pF2n5z6zxYhZaM4EMMHto4Ani/l
bUbkFArqcOp7AYO59QD9gZvi
=+j3K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anonymous
>of
>this page email me at
>P.S. to zoobuster:
<Getting
<this page deleted off palces isn't gonna help you now.
Hey, thanks for advertising our animal abuse site in your previous post-
the more hits the better. Oh, and by the way, we discovered your hacking
and you have no idea how you *helped* our side now!! Check out our revised
web sites. Also, thanks to the other author who confirmed the facts about
zoophile.org's advertisements and activities.
And lastly, to zoobuste...@hotmail.com hey, we had fun shutting
down that tripod site due to the porn content, but in actuality I don't
care what you do it doesn't affect me! Yall just think I'm going to blow
up big time in a huge fit of rage, nope, sorry, ain't going to play your
game and actually I'm finding your efforts
humorous and rather petty. No one in real life cares what you post and I
for one don't care- if I had, I never would have started posting about
this beginning over three months ago. Jesus forgives you, so do I!
Now, have a good day!
--
nob...@nsm.htp.org
Thanks for all the help. Glad I got a web site
on your box. NOT!!! Stupid fuck!
--------------------------------------------------
Date:
Sun, 2 Aug 1998 22:49:35 EDT
From:
Sayn...@aol.com
To:
ar-v...@envirolink.org
Subject:
Re: the zoophile server in Texas
Message-ID:
<37be415c...@aol.com>
Mime-Version:
1.0
Content-type:
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit
We have the following information for various law enforcement agencies in
Conroe Texas where this zoophile domain resides.
An activist mailed us and said they were faxing the Sheriff's dept there our
post regarding this animal abuse server that hosts web sites and promotional
files for zoophiles.
We have a new page that will search dejanews for the specific information
needed;
http://members.aol.com/saynozoos/deja2.html
This is simply a preconfigured search that is linked to dejanews.
If this happens to be down, due to this zoophiles efforts to shut our web
site down, it will be back up within hours and we will post that here. They
were posting already on newsgroups, bragging they shut us down, but they did
not!
The internic public registration information is easy to obtain at;
http://www.blighty.com/spam/spade.html
Enter the domain name zoophile.org in the various search boxes for the name,
address
of the domain owners. They are on S.Lakeshore Drive Conroe, TX 77303
We obtained a more current phone number, which has a 409 area code obtained
thru the
online white pages search.
If a bunch of us fax, snail-mail and call in this information, we can take
this zoophile
internet service down off the net completely, and close dozens of their animal
abuse web sites and accounts.
Any fax numbers and emails activists can provide for these and any other
agencies, let's
find them, here is what I have right now;
Business Name Address City Phone Conroe City
========================================================
Police Chief 401 Simonton St Conroe, TX (409) 760-4614
Federal Bureau-Investigation 9001 Interstate 45 S Conroe, TX (281) 367-9433
Montgomery Cnty Emergency Mgmt 301 N Thompson St # 210 Conroe, TX (409)
539-7812
Montgomery County Sheriff Dept 1 Criminal Justice Dr Conroe, TX (409)
760-5871 Oak Ridge North
Police Dept 27326 Robinson Rd Conroe, TX (281) 292-4643
The Postal Inspection Service office that serves CONROE TX can be
contacted at:
POSTAL INSPECTION SERVICE
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
PO BOX 1276
HOUSTON TX 77251-1276
Phone : 713-238-4400
Fax : 713-238-4460
I'm sure the IRS might like a copy, if there's any sign the crook
involved might not be declaring all his US income. Send a copy with a
brief cover letter to the IRS- there are posts showing sales of $50 CD's and
$20 net accounts;
vic_...@my-dejanews.com
*SNIP*
> I have to give you credit there, though. I didn't even see
> embellishment in your reporting of the zoophool.org incident. Of
> course, not embellishment was needed.
BULLSHIT! He claimed we SOLD and DISTRIBUTED CD's. He even went so far as
to say he had contacted the IRS to tell them we had received income from the
CD sales we did not include on our tax return ... which is ludicrous. He
also claims he has "evidence" of this. I guess the "evidence" didn't hold
up, which is why he was forced to change his website.
> Eagle and Hawk, BTW, are not
> considered representative of zoophiles. I don't think they even have
> sex with animals.
You don't represent me any more than I don't represent you. I do have sex
with animals, but don't go looking for pictures of me doing so because they
do NOT exist. Having sex with animals is not illegal in TX.
Am I alone in loving animals solely because I love animals, not because I want
to show off pics for shock value? I guess I am.
> An> This is true there are a number who are not only 'threatening', but
> An> are actively reporting to the Conroe TX agencies and others.
>
> I'll bet they're getting tired of humoring you, too.
Heh, I agree there. How long has this guy been contacting the "authorities"?
Weeks? Months? If these agencies are that backlogged, nobody need worry
about anything Hawk or I do. I'm not sitting in a jail cell. I haven't
heard two bits from any official ... save for the officer that interrogated
me when I just happened to be walking down a nearby farm road wearing dark
clothes, drenched in sweat, smelling of mare, and bearing no I.D... ;>
>
> See any twitching in that corpse you saved? She might be coming
> back to life. How many zoophiles do you need to sacrifice to your
> volcano god? Eagle and Hawk won't do you any good. They're not
> zoophiles.
Give evidence of this or stand as the namecalling liar you are. ZB isn't the
only one who has TRIED and failed to "sacrifice" us. I'm alive and I'm free.
What you believe is irrelevant. Don't waste your breath continuing to attack
Hawk or I, there are bigger fish to fry. We haven't taken any unwarranted
actions against anyone, zoo or otherwise. We survive and thrive and are
returning. ZB only makes us more determined.
> You've been sounding so rational in your psychopathy, too. It
> won't last, though. In a few months this one will run its course and
> you will be suicidal again, you'll hate the people who are handling you
> now, and you will probably steal all the wrought iron from the church
> before you burn it down. You're a ticking time bomb, and when you go
> off, I hope the church is holding you.
>
> ... Like dumpster-diving behind the nuclear plant...
You do seem to like it a lot. Probably try to warm up your freezing head in
the microwave too.
-- Eagle
Lover of Animals,
Hater of brats
amz1...@my-dejanews.com
pri...@irs.com (Pristan Etallion) wrote:
> TK apparently wrote:
>
> ->A wannabe then is someone that has not had sex with animals and wants to be
a
> ->zoo? or wants to have sex with animals? Well hell, what were we before we
> ->'experimented'?
>
> A prepubescent elementary schoolboy before... and afterwards as well.
> I hope you aren't dating any.
>
> ->What is done is done however.
>
> Indeed. I notice you didn't sign this one, though both TK and the
> Gameboy tend to do so. You never responded to my comments about
> gender usage early on in this business either. Another attempt
> to confuse people? Which "zoowolf" took the others name?
>
> PN
1. As I explained I did not intend to post via aol.com it was a blunder
2. What gender useage comments? and how are they relevant here?
3. Neither of us were familiar with the other when I chose my aol accound and
he chose his nick.
4. The question on wannabes still stands, if it simply means someone who has
yet to fuck animals, I do not see its connection with molestation.
5. I dont date prepubescent schoolboys.
TK
amz1...@my-dejanews.com
Let us not continue here bashing each others brains in for all to see. Below
you have slung a whole truckload of mud in my general direction (so be it) and
for what purpose I cannot divine. Do you fear me? Know that I do not give
out personal information unlike what you have done below, and know that I have
strived never to be inproper or unlawful thus, no illicit sex with your
animals, and some solicited sex with dingodog (which you were witness to a
number of times.) If you need to sling mud go right ahead, but hear me- you
let slip one more shred of rl info and I will answer every slip of yours with
a "slip" of my own.
In article <6qg1o6$fq3$1...@bashir.ici.net>,
"Cor in Archenland" <ce...@connix.com> wrote:
Oh and one more thing chuckeyboy, while I have stood idle watching things that
you have done with the animals that I disagree with, I would never have let
you or anyone else force themselves upon any animal sexually, your supposition
that I care not for Tdog's well being (or care for it less somehow than being
fair and giving room) is quite insulting. Please drop this, we have bashed
each other enough in email, what's done is done, let it die, exploring this in
public searves nothing more than public display and posturing. -and remember,
no more rl info
Seems just yesterday that you wished me well... wonder why the quick 180
zoow...@aol.com
> >My appologies
> >for the confusion, but let me also point out that, this is another example
> of
> >your hastey decision making. Take a chill pill, sit back, relax and enjoy
> >life...
>
> And you are still mis-spelling hasty :P
>
>
> "I think *true* happiness can only be found in the wanton indulgence of
> animals." Hobbes.
I know you have better things to doo in life than to sit back and insult me.
Take a chill pill, let it die, or do you get off on this kind of thing?
Angerphillia, Stressexual, Real World Zealot of Argumentation?
You must have been lying when you wished me well earlier.
bgtvfrc...@nospam-2816.hotmail.com
> >http://zoobuster.int3l.com is back up. If anyone wants to mirror a copy
> >of
> >this page email me at
> >P.S. to zoobuster:
> <Getting
> <this page deleted off palces isn't gonna help you now.
>
> Hey, thanks for advertising our animal abuse site in your previous post-
> the more hits the better. Oh, and by the way, we discovered your hacking
> web sites. Also, thanks to the other author who confirmed the facts about
> zoophile.org's advertisements and activities.
>
> And lastly, to zoobuste...@hotmail.com hey, we had fun shutting
> care what you do it doesn't affect me! <really? you were so quick to get that one removed, while other easy ones to get rid of you've done nothing about. Randy, you're just scared your *AR Friends* will eat you alive if they find out what you are> Yall just think I'm going to blow
> up big time in a huge fit of rage, nope, sorry, ain't going to play your
> humorous and rather petty. No one in real life cares what you post <nor do they care what you post either. I've seen inside your mailbox, just basically clueless people replying to your messages> and I
> for one don't care- if I had, I never would have started posting about
>
> Now, have a good day!
hawk, eagle, zoophile.org, porn, hawk, eagle, zoophile.org, porn, hawk, eagle, zoophile.org, porn, hawk, eagle, zoophile.org, porn, hawk, eagle, zoophile.org, porn, hawk, eagle, zoophile.org, porn, hawk, eagle, zoophile.org, porn, hawk, eagle, zoophile.org, porn, hawk, eagle, zoophile.org, porn, hawk, eagle, zoophile.org, porn
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted using Reference.COM http://WWW.Reference.COM
FREE Usenet and Mailing list archive, directory and clipping service
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ja...@nym.alias.net
: You don't represent me any more than I don't represent you. I do have sex
: with animals, but don't go looking for pictures of me doing so because they
: do NOT exist. Having sex with animals is not illegal in TX.
: Am I alone in loving animals solely because I love animals, not because I want
: to show off pics for shock value? I guess I am.
Tall Thin did not state that he wanted to see pics of you having sex with
animals.
> I'll bet they're getting tired of humoring you, too.
: Heh, I agree there. How long has this guy been contacting the "authorities"?
: Weeks? Months? If these agencies are that backlogged, nobody need worry
: about anything Hawk or I do. I'm not sitting in a jail cell.
Your head is in the sand. The wheels of justice turn very slowly.
: I haven't
: heard two bits from any official ... save for the officer that interrogated
: me when I just happened to be walking down a nearby farm road wearing dark
: clothes, drenched in sweat, smelling of mare, and bearing no I.D... ;>
Ah, so you are fencehopper. You trespass on somebody elses property in
the middle of the night just so you can get yourself a fuck. That is more
along the lines of a bestialist, than a zoophile. Just think of it Eagle.
That +1,000 dollars and 300 bucks a month you blew on zoophile.org could
have given you a mare of your own. But no, you and Hawk wanted to be an
icon of the zoophile community instead. You have made your choice, you
choose to advance your social status among humans instead of getting an
animal. That is why you are not a zoophile.
Fencehopping is a crime BTW. You've just given ZB more ammo to use
against you.
>
> See any twitching in that corpse you saved? She might be coming
> back to life. How many zoophiles do you need to sacrifice to your
> volcano god? Eagle and Hawk won't do you any good. They're not
> zoophiles.
: Give evidence of this or stand as the namecalling liar you are.
Show me the evidence Eagle.
: ZB isn't the
: only one who has TRIED and failed to "sacrifice" us. I'm alive and I'm free.
: What you believe is irrelevant. Don't waste your breath continuing to attack
: Hawk or I, there are bigger fish to fry. We haven't taken any unwarranted
: actions against anyone, zoo or otherwise. We survive and thrive and are
: returning. ZB only makes us more determined.
Returning would only mean suicide. But alas, it is all part of your grand
illogical plan to lead zoophiles to acceptance.
> You've been sounding so rational in your psychopathy, too. It
> won't last, though. In a few months this one will run its course and
> you will be suicidal again, you'll hate the people who are handling you
> now, and you will probably steal all the wrought iron from the church
> before you burn it down. You're a ticking time bomb, and when you go
> off, I hope the church is holding you.
Well Tall Thin, he does have the classic profile of a schizophrenic.
Insanity may be his only defense.
James
Eagle
ja...@nym.alias.net wrote:
>
> : You don't represent me any more than I don't represent you. I do have sex
> : with animals, but don't go looking for pictures of me doing so because they
> : do NOT exist. Having sex with animals is not illegal in TX.
>
> : Am I alone in loving animals solely because I love animals, not because I
want
> : to show off pics for shock value? I guess I am.
>
> Tall Thin did not state that he wanted to see pics of you having sex with
> animals.
He wants some evidence ... what are you suggesting, he wants a live voyeur
show? That's not too bloodly likely either.
>
> > I'll bet they're getting tired of humoring you, too.
>
> : Heh, I agree there. How long has this guy been contacting the
"authorities"?
> : Weeks? Months? If these agencies are that backlogged, nobody need worry
> : about anything Hawk or I do. I'm not sitting in a jail cell.
>
> Your head is in the sand. The wheels of justice turn very slowly.
>
Oh, no! We run a website devouted to those who love animals! Its such a big
crime!
> : I haven't
> : heard two bits from any official ... save for the officer that interrogated
> : me when I just happened to be walking down a nearby farm road wearing dark
> : clothes, drenched in sweat, smelling of mare, and bearing no I.D... ;>
>
> Ah, so you are fencehopper. You trespass on somebody elses property in
> the middle of the night just so you can get yourself a fuck.
No, I don't ever even have sex with animals, remember? Ask Tall Thin ... he,
of course, knows more about me than I do!
> That is more
> along the lines of a bestialist, than a zoophile.
Just what were the definitions of bestialist and zoophile again?
> Just think of it Eagle.
> That +1,000 dollars and 300 bucks a month you blew on zoophile.org could
> have given you a mare of your own. But no, you and Hawk wanted to be an
> icon of the zoophile community instead. You have made your choice, you
> choose to advance your social status among humans instead of getting an
> animal. That is why you are not a zoophile.
There are a LOT better ways of raising my social status than to continue
working on something so loathed. I don't even know which is more loathed
anymore ... the server or me personally. I don't even know if I care.
Which leads one to wonder why I do keep working on the server ... it couldn't
possibly be because I want to? That there are a few zoos out there who want
a place to rest their musings without getting flushed out by the new zealot
of the month? Nah, couldn't be. I'm just pure evil bent on destroying all
zoophiles. Ask anyone in the RWZ! Hell, maybe I'm really in league with ZB!
> Fencehopping is a crime BTW. You've just given ZB more ammo to use
> against you.
>
So is speeding. I do that a lot more often than I go fencehopping. Hey, Zoo
Buster ... there's your ticket! Follow me around with a video camera
everywhere, yeah!
> >
> > See any twitching in that corpse you saved? She might be coming
> > back to life. How many zoophiles do you need to sacrifice to your
> > volcano god? Eagle and Hawk won't do you any good. They're not
> > zoophiles.
>
> : Give evidence of this or stand as the namecalling liar you are.
>
> Show me the evidence Eagle.
Its up to a certain someone to back up his claim, else he prove my
counterclaim correct.
>
> : ZB isn't the
> : only one who has TRIED and failed to "sacrifice" us. I'm alive and I'm
free.
> : What you believe is irrelevant. Don't waste your breath continuing to
attack
> : Hawk or I, there are bigger fish to fry. We haven't taken any unwarranted
> : actions against anyone, zoo or otherwise. We survive and thrive and are
> : returning. ZB only makes us more determined.
>
> Returning would only mean suicide. But alas, it is all part of your grand
> illogical plan to lead zoophiles to acceptance.
We'll see. As for the illogic, its a matter of choice ... to let Zoo Buster
or whatever new zealot appears around the corner give the general public
their version of zoophilia, or allow zoophiles to present themselves as they
want to be seen.
No, I do not represent zoophiles, but in working on zoophile.org, I allow a
few to speak their own minds.
> > You've been sounding so rational in your psychopathy, too. It
> > won't last, though. In a few months this one will run its course and
> > you will be suicidal again, you'll hate the people who are handling you
> > now, and you will probably steal all the wrought iron from the church
> > before you burn it down. You're a ticking time bomb, and when you go
> > off, I hope the church is holding you.
>
> Well Tall Thin, he does have the classic profile of a schizophrenic.
> Insanity may be his only defense.
>
Maybe before I do, I'll spend my every waking hour on the newsgroups, find
some easy and inoffensive target and flame and harrass it to hell ... no,
wait, you already do that!
In a few months, this one WHAT will run its course? Life? I'm certainly not
old by any standards, but I'd say living this life for 22 out of 22 years,
chances are I'll still be living the same one for a lot longer than a few
months.
As for hating the people handling me now ... I'd really have to lose a lot of
self-esteem to hate myself. I am self-sufficient. I don't borrow a dime from
anyone, not even Hawk.
As for hating the church, I'm not sure what gave you that idea. My mother is
a devout Baptist and I love her dearly. I have a number of Catholics and
other churchgoers as close friends.
Anyone care to guess what your motivations are in making such accusations?
-- Eagle
amz1...@my-dejanews.com
djali <dj...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
> zoow...@aol.com wrote:
>
> : This is actually quite funny, I have an account over at AOL, from a ways
back
> : ... zoow...@aol.com, in my haste to get out the door I neglected to make
> : for the confusion, but let me also point out that, this is another example
of
> : your hastey decision making. Take a chill pill, sit back, relax and enjoy
> : life...
>
> and I think its in rather poor taste to continue to post as such.
I agree with you, unbeknownst to me, Dejanews had added that addy to a list at
the top of my posting form, they probably figure (since that's the last addy
he used, he'll prolly want to post with that one) Blame my ignorance, my
appologise to all for the confustion and to Zoowolf himself for accidentally
using his handle.
TK
amz1...@my-dejanews.com
> ->the supposed identity of R.W.Z. and A human that has sex with animals?
>
> Are you implying that they are one and the same?
Though that possibility exists, I doubt it. I do believe however that both of
these individuals use other names elsewhere.
> ->Their identities (all three) are less interesting than the fact they choose
> ->to hide behind anonymity.
>
> Yes, their RL names are unimportant since the fact that they choose to
> protect their animals, from the dogzoos, the equamorons, and the
> Forest Phools that inhabit the net, shows their heart is in the
> right place.
>
> PN
They could still protect their anonymity while giving out their identity (The
ones they use on the talker if they go there.) To remain anonymous here
gives them two things: they can retain their other identity to gather
information and get close to people; and they can remain unaccountable to
what they say and do here when people see them in other forums.