Brunching Shuttlecocks on Furry Fandom
bdy...@network.boxmail.com
http://www.brunching.com/features/furries.html
It equates furrydom with sex, but please read a few other features before
you blow your top (I recommend "Choose Your Own Damn Pokemon Adventure",
Good or Bad?, or foreign snack food ratings). It also mentions the Burned
Furs, though probably not in a way they'd like.
I'd disappointed, as I thought it was going to rate different kinds of
fur. ("Leopard: striking for a night out on the town. B Otter: you'll
float, but you'll have to put those stupid plastic covers on all your
furniture. C")
--
Brian Dysart | The RNG giveth, and the RNG taketh away.
bdy...@network.boxmail.com | "...and eight for the fruit bat."
www.rahul.net/bdysart/ | <*> Code Code block: C---
ilr
Now let's all over-analyze it like the furry-obsessed victims
of alienation that we are =)
-Ilr
<bdy...@network.boxmail.com> wrote in message news:8t9lf6$6e$1...@samba.rahul.net...
Camarogeddon
> Am I the only one who enjoyed this article?
Definitely not. It's satiric, and i like it.
To be honest, i laughed out loud :)
> Now let's all over-analyze it like the furry-obsessed victims
> of alienation that we are =)
The results from earlier discussions tells me there are some persons here
who doesn't know what the word satire means..
or at least they don't understand it.
--
-Camarogeddon
remove "killthespammers" to mail me
Doodles
> Am I the only one who enjoyed this article?
Nope, I was amused as all heck.
> Now let's all over-analyze it like the furry-obsessed victims
> of alienation that we are =)
Gotcha. [Over-analysis gears engaged] =};-3
I just enjoyed the proof of what a lot of folks have said all along. The Burned Furs
are the fandom's equivalent of the ex-gay movement, and the shreiks from their quarter
have only drawn mundane attention to the sexual aspects that exist in Furry, not
blocked them. Like the orators and religious types who would rail about the evils of
Rock and Roll during the 50's, they've served to help bring more folks into the fandom
than ever, and made those outside it view Furry with a specific eye for the parts they
have tried to cover up.
Thanks, guys! =};-3
stickily yours,
Unca Spooge
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> At the risk of throwing fuel onto a fire that never dies:
>
> http://www.brunching.com/features/furries.html
>
> It equates furrydom with sex, but please read a few other features
> before you blow your top (I recommend "Choose Your Own Damn
> Pokemon Adventure", Good or Bad?, or foreign snack food ratings). It
> also mentions the Burned Furs, though probably not in a way they'd like.
Mentions? It's about them. The argument is summed up as "If Furries weren't
deviant perverts, there wouldn't be a group trying to say they weren't." Or,
read another way, "The existence of the Burned Furs proves that Furries are
deviants." Which to me seems to be putting the cart before the horse.
Personally, I had a lot more fun with the Goth Quote Generator.
http://www.brunching.com/toys/toy-gothquotex.html
--
"if Marylin Manson has more of an influence on a kid than the kid's parents
do, then maybe the parents need to look at how they're raising their kids."
-- Charlie Clouser, Keyboardist, Nine Inch Nails.
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
Bahumat
--> Loved that line. :)
Bahumat, laughing heartily
Jim Doolittle
> Am I the only one who enjoyed this article?
>
> Now let's all over-analyze it like the furry-obsessed victims
> of alienation that we are =)
> -Ilr
I dunno. I thought it was pretty funny. :)
-Jim
--
Jim Doolittle CornWuff Press
dool...@tbcnet.com http://www.cornwuff.com
Art Show Director, Midwest FurFest
http://www.furfest.org
Moonshadow
very much but it actually got a few chuckles out of me, especially the otter
lady comment. Not the funniest that they have done though.
Personally, I wouldn't have linked to Furnation, but they weren't exactly
promoting furry. :-) Nothing wrong with Furnation - there's good stuff
there - but I wouldn't send people there for a first furry experience. The
Brunching UBB message board has some rather squicked-sounding messages, but
that's understandable considering the presentation. Ah well.
--
- Moonshadow
Fur Code:
FCW3 A-- C D H M P+ R+ T++ W-- Z Sm++ RLMA a20 cln++ d e f- h iw+ j* p- sm
ICQ# 15528523
Email is spam-protected. Switch 'com' and 'hotmail' to send.
Atara
>At the risk of throwing fuel onto a fire that never dies:
>
>http://www.brunching.com/features/furries.html
Color me amused. =)
And again it only renforces the notion that it isn't the
[plushophiles/lifestylers/evil furry fan type of the week] that squick
people... it's the omnipresent spooge.
--
Atara
"I've got a pantheon of animals
in a pagan soul..." -Rush
http://www.FurNation.com/Atara/
Hangdog
> Eh, that wasn't as bad as it could have been. I don't like furry-smearing
> very much but it actually got a few chuckles out of me, especially the otter
> lady comment. Not the funniest that they have done though.
I kinda gotta wonder why the Brunching Shuttlecocks would suddenly decide to
stop kidding for a moment and be serious...about *furry fandom*.
> Personally, I wouldn't have linked to Furnation
Why not?
> but they weren't exactly
> promoting furry. :-) Nothing wrong with Furnation - there's good stuff
> there - but I wouldn't send people there for a first furry experience.
Why not?
> The
> Brunching UBB message board has some rather squicked-sounding messages, but
> that's understandable considering the presentation. Ah well.
Actually, ther presentation was sympathetic, as far as I could tell.
--HD, BF, etc.
Hangdog
> At the risk of throwing fuel onto a fire that never dies:
>
> http://www.brunching.com/features/furries.html
>
> It equates furrydom with sex, but please read a few other features before
> you blow your top (I recommend "Choose Your Own Damn Pokemon Adventure",
> Good or Bad?, or foreign snack food ratings). It also mentions the Burned
> Furs, though probably not in a way they'd like.
*shrug* It's about what I'd expect of someone who'd given the fandom a
once-over lightly. Heck, it was *my* opinion until Burned Fur's opposition
started showing its true colors.
The person who made the most convincing argument for me to join Burned Fur was
Xydexx, right here on aff.
--Hangdog, Burned Fur.
Hangdog
> ilr wrote:
>
> > Am I the only one who enjoyed this article?
>
> Nope, I was amused as all heck.
>
> > Now let's all over-analyze it like the furry-obsessed victims
> > of alienation that we are =)
>
> Gotcha. [Over-analysis gears engaged] =};-3
>
> I just enjoyed the proof of what a lot of folks have said all along. The Burned Furs
> are the fandom's equivalent of the ex-gay movement,
Once again, you raise the old lie about Burned Fur being anti-gay.
> and the shreiks from their quarter
> have only drawn mundane attention to the sexual aspects that exist in Furry, not
> blocked them.
Shoot the messenger. *sigh*
> Like the orators and religious types who would rail about the evils of
> Rock and Roll during the 50's, they've served to help bring more folks into the fandom
> than ever, and made those outside it view Furry with a specific eye for the parts they
> have tried to cover up.
"Those darned Burned Furs! All they do is draw unwanted attention to those parts of the
fandom that I think are alright anyway!"
> Thanks, guys! =};-3
Oh, don't thank us yet. We have lots more to do :o)
--Hangdog, Burned Fur
Leslie_R
>
> Doodles wrote:
>
> > ilr wrote:
> >
> > > Am I the only one who enjoyed this article?
> >
> > Nope, I was amused as all heck.
> >
> > > Now let's all over-analyze it like the furry-obsessed victims
> > > of alienation that we are =)
> >
> > Gotcha. [Over-analysis gears engaged] =};-3
> >
> > I just enjoyed the proof of what a lot of folks have said all along. The Burned Furs
> > are the fandom's equivalent of the ex-gay movement,
>
> Once again, you raise the old lie about Burned Fur being anti-gay.
>
group and a dissafected splinter-group lashing out at it's parent
group.. or soemthing
> > and the shreiks from their quarter
> > have only drawn mundane attention to the sexual aspects that exist in Furry, not
> > blocked them.
>
> Shoot the messenger. *sigh*
who's doing the shooting and who's the message being delevered to?
>
> > Like the orators and religious types who would rail about the evils of
> > Rock and Roll during the 50's, they've served to help bring more folks into the fandom
> > than ever, and made those outside it view Furry with a specific eye for the parts they
> > have tried to cover up.
>
> "Those darned Burned Furs! All they do is draw unwanted attention to those parts of the
> fandom that I think are alright anyway!"
well, don't you?
>
> > Thanks, guys! =};-3
>
> Oh, don't thank us yet. We have lots more to do :o)
oh? like what?
>
> --Hangdog, Burned Fur
Leslie, lightly sautee'ed fur
--
"Now we are so happy, we do the Dance of Joy!"
-Balki Bartokamouse
Hangdog
> Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
> : "Those darned Burned Furs! All they do is draw unwanted attention to those parts of the
> : fandom that I think are alright anyway!"
>
> :> Thanks, guys! =};-3
>
> : Oh, don't thank us yet. We have lots more to do :o)
>
> Oh come on. The BF haven't actually done anything other than run their
> mouths since the Heifer Hop at AC
Well, you've got me there: since we're burdened with things like good jobs, higher education,
real-life relationships and interesting hobbies, we can't devote the time to the fandom that
you can.
But, even with those constraints, we still seem to be important enough to you to make you
angry. Thanks. We'll keep up the good work :o)
--Hangdog, Burned Fur
Rust
> Leslie, lightly sautee'ed fur
With onion? Secret ingredient for everything, sauteed onion. Soups,
spaghetti sauce, ice cream...
Well, okay, maybe not the spaghetti sauce.
-Rust
--
We are the instruments of creation - what we dream, is.
Remove ".netspam" from my address to reply
Cerulean
>Am I the only one who enjoyed this article?
No, I thought it was good. Not earth-shattering in humor value, but
good. Moreover, I thought it portrayed furry fandom in a positive
light, albeit a positive light which will not reach the sort of reader
who thinks Orgasms are Bad.
Even better, Eric Blumrich's letter of complaint was hilariously
pathetic. Prepare to be shocked, Fitz, one of the people you poked fun
at wants to tell you you're not funny. It's just too bad it's not
Seanbaby that Eric is shaking his fist at, _then_ we'd see some
major-league high-caliber mockery.
--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( hjjnp - ,,77ej +snw shep awos +y6!u H)e3 o+uI,,
Hangdog
> Hangdog wrote:
> >
> > Doodles wrote:
> >
> > > ilr wrote:
> > >
> > > > Am I the only one who enjoyed this article?
> > >
> > > Nope, I was amused as all heck.
> > >
> > > > Now let's all over-analyze it like the furry-obsessed victims
> > > > of alienation that we are =)
> > >
> > > Gotcha. [Over-analysis gears engaged] =};-3
> > >
> > > I just enjoyed the proof of what a lot of folks have said all along. The Burned Furs
> > > are the fandom's equivalent of the ex-gay movement,
> >
> > Once again, you raise the old lie about Burned Fur being anti-gay.
> >
> uh, no.. he seems to me to be makeing a rough analogy about a large
> group and a dissafected splinter-group lashing out at it's parent
> group.. or soemthing
Rough indeed: even you seem to be having trouble understanding what he meant--and you agree
with him! :o)
>
>
> > > and the shreiks from their quarter
> > > have only drawn mundane attention to the sexual aspects that exist in Furry, not
> > > blocked them.
> >
> > Shoot the messenger. *sigh*
>
> who's doing the shooting and who's the message being delevered to?
Burned Fur is delivering the message to the fandom that Something Is Wrong. We get "shot" by
folks like "Doodles" who believe that the only thing wrong is that we're saying something's
wrong.
> > > Like the orators and religious types who would rail about the evils of
> > > Rock and Roll during the 50's, they've served to help bring more folks into the fandom
> > > than ever, and made those outside it view Furry with a specific eye for the parts they
> > > have tried to cover up.
> >
> > "Those darned Burned Furs! All they do is draw unwanted attention to those parts of the
> > fandom that I think are alright anyway!"
>
> well, don't you?
If he think they're alright, why does he object that we draw attention to them?
(As an aside, I've noticed an interesting thing about furries: they're well up on debaters
tricks and fine shades of meaning when it comes to defending their own arguments, but are
completely unable to comprehend simple logic when confronted with opposing arguments)
> > > Thanks, guys! =};-3
> >
> > Oh, don't thank us yet. We have lots more to do :o)
>
> oh? like what?
That would be telling, now, wouldn't it? :o)
Cerulean
>> I just enjoyed the proof of what a lot of folks have said all along. The Burned Furs
>> are the fandom's equivalent of the ex-gay movement,
>
>Once again, you raise the old lie about Burned Fur being anti-gay.
Once again, Hangdog doesn't know how to read.
I tried using the Schorn Speed-Reading Method on the same paragraph,
and I managed to pick up "enjoyed proof" and concluded you are drunk.
Meglique
>pathetic.
OOH! OOH!! could you post it here pretty please???
meg
Leslie_R
>
> Leslie_R wrote:
>
> > Hangdog wrote:
> > >
> > > Doodles wrote:
> > >
> > > > ilr wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Am I the only one who enjoyed this article?
> > > >
> > > > Nope, I was amused as all heck.
> > > >
> > > > > Now let's all over-analyze it like the furry-obsessed victims
> > > > > of alienation that we are =)
> > > >
> > > > Gotcha. [Over-analysis gears engaged] =};-3
> > > >
> > > > I just enjoyed the proof of what a lot of folks have said all along. The Burned Furs
> > > > are the fandom's equivalent of the ex-gay movement,
> > >
> > > Once again, you raise the old lie about Burned Fur being anti-gay.
> > >
> > uh, no.. he seems to me to be makeing a rough analogy about a large
> > group and a dissafected splinter-group lashing out at it's parent
> > group.. or soemthing
>
> Rough indeed: even you seem to be having trouble understanding what he meant--and you agree
> with him! :o)
no,i don't.. analogies are observations comparing two disimilar things
that seem to have something in common, here the analogy would be the
relatoinship between Homosexuals at large and the ex-gays compared to
the relationship between fanom at large and the VFs.. and not with
anyone's views on sexuality
>
> >
> >
> > > > and the shreiks from their quarter
> > > > have only drawn mundane attention to the sexual aspects that exist in Furry, not
> > > > blocked them.
> > >
> > > Shoot the messenger. *sigh*
> >
> > who's doing the shooting and who's the message being delevered to?
>
> Burned Fur is delivering the message to the fandom that Something Is Wrong. We get "shot" by
> folks like "Doodles" who believe that the only thing wrong is that we're saying something's
> wrong.
>
what is wrong?
> > > > Like the orators and religious types who would rail about the evils of
> > > > Rock and Roll during the 50's, they've served to help bring more folks into the fandom
> > > > than ever, and made those outside it view Furry with a specific eye for the parts they
> > > > have tried to cover up.
> > >
> > > "Those darned Burned Furs! All they do is draw unwanted attention to those parts of the
> > > fandom that I think are alright anyway!"
> >
> > well, don't you?
>
> If he think they're alright, why does he object that we draw attention to them?
i think having a barbecue would be laright, but if one of the poeple i
invited was a vegetarian and i didn't know about it until then i
wouldn't mind him not eating any of the burgers or hot-dogs i cooked,
but i would take exception to him walkiing out on the front lawn and
shouting at passers-by "they're cooking MEAT here!"
>
> (As an aside, I've noticed an interesting thing about furries: they're well up on debaters
> tricks and fine shades of meaning when it comes to defending their own arguments, but are
> completely unable to comprehend simple logic when confronted with opposing arguments)
>
pot? i'd like you to meet kettle
> > > > Thanks, guys! =};-3
> > >
> > > Oh, don't thank us yet. We have lots more to do :o)
> >
> > oh? like what?
>
> That would be telling, now, wouldn't it? :o)
by hook or by crook eh Number 2? -;>
Leslie
ilr
> (As an aside, I've noticed an interesting thing about furries: they're well up on debaters
> tricks and fine shades of meaning when it comes to defending their own arguments, but are
> completely unable to comprehend simple logic when confronted with opposing arguments)
>
I'm not really here to join any this squabble, I'm just wondering what this statement
means. Im sure you're not tripping over your own intentions, it's just the words that
struck me funny. First there's:
** furries: they're well up on debaters tricks and fine shades of **
This could be interpreted like, "they're learn-ed and talented in rationalizing ...
(Like "PKB" for example)
** meaning when it comes to defending their own arguments **
..their vices which fly in the face of the opposing ideals."
** but are completely unable to comprehend simple logic **
"But the basics escape them...
** when confronted with opposing arguments **
...whenever they are challenged by the ideals that they developed their
whole defensive repetoir' against.
To me, you're our GwBush. And I don't mean that as an insult as I'm
voting for the guy by voting for Nader. I just wanted to point out that
you make some advanced logical conclusions that slip past the rest
of us or just skip some steps in explanation while getting there. But I'm just
a kid, seeing it with my "new eyes" is about the only thing I can do. I
lack the experience to know how it should be done right. So if you could
clarify it or delineate it a little slower or broader, it would help Me atleast.
-Ilr
Chuck Melville
Meglique wrote:
Eric's already done that; look for the post titled AN OPEN LETTER.
Chuck Melville
Hangdog wrote:
> Leslie_R wrote:
>
>
> >
> > who's doing the shooting and who's the message being delevered to?
>
> Burned Fur is delivering the message to the fandom that Something Is Wrong. We get "shot" by
> folks like "Doodles" who believe that the only thing wrong is that we're saying something's
> wrong.
>
I might be mistaken, but I don't recall Doodles saying anything of the like; in fact, I
rather suspect he's simply tired of -both- sides of the argument. Lay the statement where it
really belongs, such as with Xxydex who -has- said exactly that.
Chuck Melville
-- except now the shoe is on a different foot. What it -really- boils down to is that you can
gore any old Sacred Ox you want, so long as it's not -my- Sacred Ox.
Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
> I might be mistaken, but I don't recall Doodles saying anything
> of the like; in fact, I rather suspect he's simply tired of -both-
> sides of the argument.
Like myself and the rest of the fandom.
> Lay the statement where it really belongs,
> such as with Xxydex who -has- said exactly that.
No, I haven't. But it wouldn't be the first time you've made stuff
about me, would it?
(Ask me about my boycott of Mu Press.)
--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
Sign the petition to keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Farlo
Due to the seriousness of the this issue please clarify:
Do you mean that Xydexx has, in the past, said that "the only thing wrong
is that the BF say something is wrong"? He may have!
****OR****
Do you mean that you agree with hangdog that the BF "get shot"?
Maybe you forgot that at least two Burned Furs have made threats of
physical violence and "joke" about putting a bullet in the back of the
heads of others? A BF wrote here that he was going to slam Xydexx into a
wall if he ever saw him at con.
Violence is not ever an acceptable tool for public debate, and I would just
like it clarified, okay? Pretty AR of me, I'll admit, but violence is a
serious topic.
Thanks,
Farlo
Chuck Melville wrote:
--
Farlo
Urban fey dragon
Do not stand in my way -
I will walk around you.
m>^_^<m
Farlo
> What it -really- boils down to is that you can
>gore any old Sacred Ox you want, so long as it's not -my- Sacred Ox.
Heehee ... out of context, this is a great phrase.
I am from Southern California, where NIMBY originated.
Not In My Back Yard.
Farlo
>Do you mean that Xydexx has, in the past, said that "the only thing wrong
>is that the BF say something is wrong"? He may have!
Xydexx says that he has not, so I retract my statement.
MechaSquirrel
>(As an aside, I've noticed an interesting thing about furries:
>they're well up on debaters tricks and fine shades of meaning when it
>comes to defending their own arguments, but are completely unable to
>comprehend simple logic when confronted with opposing arguments)
...
MechaSquirrel
--
I'm not saying a word...
Dave Huang
Dennis Lee Bieber <wulf...@dm.net> wrote:
> All I see is a reference the BF, as a group, filling a role SIMILAR
>to that of the "ex-gay" group (though I've not quite figured out what
>"ex-gay" represents... a group of former gay individuals who now denounce
>that aspect of their lives?)
The "ex-gay" movement attempts to change gays into straights through
various forms of therapy. Many people are rather skeptical of whether
that's even possible though, and recently, the prominent chairman of
one of the conversion groups was spotted in a gay bar
<http://www.planetout.com/pno/people/features/2000/06/exgay/>
The movie "But I'm a Cheerleader" <http://www.butimacheerleader.com/>
spoofs the movement, and <http://www.bettybowers.com/bashpaulk.html>
is rather amusing too :)
--
Name: Dave Huang | Mammal, mammal / their names are called /
INet: kh...@bga.com | they raise a paw / the bat, the cat /
FurryMUCK: Dahan | dolphin and dog / koala bear and hog -- TMBG
Dahan: Hani G Y+C 24 Y++ L+++ W- C++ T++ A+ E+ S++ V++ F- Q+++ P+ B+ PA+ PL++
Dave Huang
>Am I the only one who enjoyed this article?
Nah, I liked it too :) It wasn't as funny as some of their other stuff
though...
Timothy Fay
>
> Color me amused. =)
>
> [plushophiles/lifestylers/evil furry fan type of the week] that
> squick people... it's the omnipresent spooge.
And that's what doomed the so-called "Burned Furs" almost from
the start, i.e., their inability to deal with this inherent
contradiction: The BFs want to rid "furry" fandom of its
"negative" elements, yet the one thing that does the most
damage to the fandom's rep is the preponderance of "adult"
material (I hesitate to call this stuff "adult," since most
of it is ridiculously juvenile -- just pick up a copy of
GALLERY and you'll see).
I'll probably have more to say about this to Mr. Blumrich in
another post...
--
http://www.umn.edu/~fayxx001
"Hey, ho -- let's go!" -Ramones
Brian O'connell
zeal... Oh the stories I could tell you about this place...
It's so bad at times, I'm surprised I haven't seen billboards from the
John Birch Society here (though I have seen them in CA)...
"Farlo" <hall...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:8FDA4CE20...@news.fysh.org...
Brian O'connell
analogy to it (and risk invoking Godwin's law), it's similar to how Germany
was operating in 1930... Their economy was in a shambles, so they used Jews
as a scapegoat... When it came down that they were attacking a singular
target and not making a significant impact, they went against other
"impurities" which could potentially cause a similar problem, ie:
defectives, homosexuals, gypsies, foreigners, etc etc etc... They were
attempting to address a problem by blaming one percieved cause, and took to
torching the rest when the singular source was found to be irellevant... And
the BF's are exactly like this... They attack anyone who questions them...
They pick a group to blame for furry fandom's "rep"... If anyone points out
that they're wrong to do so, then they attack them again... The classic "If
you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem" mentality
that we saw oh so often in Nazi Germany, McArthey America, the Bush and
Clinton Administrations, etc...
When it comes to the BF's, they claim to want to kick the perverts out
of the fandom... They go after specific groups, but that's like trying to
off, well, cockroaches... How do you get rid of roaches? Poison? Wrong...
You remove their source of food, ie: The very thing that attracts them in
the first place... How do you get rid of perverts? By yelling at them til
they go away? Not bloody likely... By removing the things that attract them,
ie: erotica, spooge, porn, what have you? Of course you do... And the BF's
can deny this until they're blue in the face, but I always knew this was one
of their chief goals... And will always challenge them...
Hell, it's normal for people to like erotica, but when anyone obsesses
on it, it very shortly becomes abnormal... And in that case, a good deal of
the BF's are exactly the same kinds of people they're trying to remove...
Abnormal obsessives who are so mentally off kilter, that they'll consider
even a nude silhouette outline as being obscene... Because it's how their
minds' eye sees it... I've had artwork that showed not a single naughty bit,
for example, and had it labeled by some non BF's as pornographic, for
example... Just a casual cheesecake shot, akin to perhaps the level of some
of Vargas' cleaner material...
As I keep explaining to these guys, and it takes the Holland Tunnel from
one ear to the next, we're (allegedly) adults who are into talking bunnies
and what have you... We ARE ALREADY freaks in the publics' minds... It
doesn't matter if you draw nothing but 'G' rated material for the rest of
your life, it doesn't matter if you draw nothing but 'XXX' material for the
rest of your life... Unless you're doing it as a job for Hallmark or any
other artistic profession, you will be... Now repeat after me: A FREAK...
Which is how the general public views anyone who isn't a fan of good ol'
fashioned sports, or at least whatever's being hyped on the WB... You're
going to be considered as abnormal by them... You are fighting the status
quo... You aren't doing something that's generally sanctioned by the media
or by a corporation... Hell, technically, the folks churning out endless
Pokemon knockoffs on Velar would be considered more normal than anyone else
in this fandom, if you took an example of their work and showed it to a
member of the general public...
"Senator, this is an ink blot, they're all ink blots... When you look at
them, what you see is what you imagine"
"Well, you call this an ink blot, but I call it sweaty naked glistening
writhing boys! It's all naked sweaty glistening boys! This is pornography
sir, and I won't approve your arts grant!!!" -MadTV excerpt (not verbatim)
invisicat
in <8tcnra$lo8$1...@velox.critter.net>:
<snipped Godwin hyperbole>
And now class, this is a perfect example of a straw man. Please stand clear
as Mr. Oconnell applies the petrol and lights it up.
Thankyou.
invisi(Safety first)cat
Bahumat
> *shrug* It's about what I'd expect of someone who'd given the fandom a
> once-over lightly. Heck, it was *my* opinion until Burned Fur's opposition started showing its true colors.
I'm surprised there's any true colors to be seen, after all that
tar-brushing from both sides. -_-;
Bahumat
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> Farlo wrote:
>
> >Do you mean that Xydexx has, in the past, said that "the only thing
> >wrong is that the BF say something is wrong"? He may have!
>
> Xydexx says that he has not, so I retract my statement.
No, you don't have to, Xydexx is lying, in a rather Clintonian way, since he's
probably going by the EXACT wording of the statement, rather than the
meaning.. But then, that's typical, because what he REALLY wants is to turn
this thread into an argument about what he did or didn't say. It makes him
feel important. And when he gets tired of it, he'll say that he's got much
better things to do.
It's the same thing he's been doing for years. Anyone who bothered to read
the old flames will recall that he HAS said that people complaining about the
fandom's problems are the ones responsible for there being an image problem,
or words to that effect. However, I promised not to bring up posts from
before July, so I'm not going to dig through the remnants of DejaNews to find
it.
--
"if Marylin Manson has more of an influence on a kid than the kid's parents
do, then maybe the parents need to look at how they're raising their kids."
-- Charlie Clouser, Keyboardist, Nine Inch Nails.
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
Have you ever? I'd stack up the adult content of any given issue of Gallery
agains tthe adult content of any other Furry 'zine and we would see a big
difference in the quality and maturity of the material.
I also disagree that a connection to adult material is more damaging than a
connection to sexual dysfunction like Bestiality.
Leslie_R
>
> In article <39F9CE...@tc.umn.edu>, Timothy Fay <
> fayxx001@delete..this..tc.umn.edu> writes:
> > just pick up a copy of GALLERY and you'll see
>
> Have you ever? I'd stack up the adult content of any given issue of Gallery
> agains tthe adult content of any other Furry 'zine and we would see a big
> difference in the quality and maturity of the material.
>
> I also disagree that a connection to adult material is more damaging than a
> connection to sexual dysfunction like Bestiality.
>
on the outside of the fandom are in general gonna see non-humans
depected in adult situations and decide that that's "Just plain
strange"(tm) with or without some nut showing pictures of his
four-legged-wife at a con or something to that effect
-Leslie
Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
> Farlo the Neato Feydragon wrote:
> >Do you mean that Xydexx has, in the past, said that "the only thing
> >wrong is that the BF say something is wrong"? He may have!
>
> Xydexx says that he has not, so I retract my statement.
Thanks, Farlo. I'm glad to see there's still some folks on this
newsgroup who don't like to see misinformation spread.
I didn't really want to get involved in this argument, and
frankly have been trying to avoid it, because I know folks on
alt.fan.furry are sick of hearing about Burned Fur. I've noticed a lot
of folks are ignoring this thread anyway, because most of us have
learned that these little arguments aren't responsible for the
improvements we've seen in the fandom over the years.
Still, I might as well take the opportunity to clarify my position for
the benefit of the few folks who actually will read this, that way if
anyone wants to argue with me about it they can argue about what my
position actually _is_, and not what someone _says_ my position is. I
know some folks get tired of me saying the same thing over and over, but
sometimes it's the only way to get the point across. Besides, I hate to
see misinformation spread.
My apologies in advance to the readers of alt.fan.furry for adding to
this thread; if it's any consolation I---unlike some people---know you
don't want to hear about this anymore.
Anyway...
My position, once again, is that if people are going to complain, they
should complain to someone in a position to do something about it.
My position is frequently (deliberately, I suspect) misinterpreted as
"don't complain" or "don't point out the fandom's problems." The fact
remains, I've never said people shouldn't complain about the fandom's
problems.
Again, for clarification, because I know there's some folks out there in
the state of Washington who still haven't gotten it after five years of
my repeating it and probably still wouldn't be able to get this very,
very, very, very, very, very simple point through their skulls if one
tattooed it to their foreheads in 144-point Arial Black lettering: It's
not pointing out the problems of the fandom that I'm taking issue with,
it's the method by which it's being accomplished.
Burned Fur is a group that's (supposedly) tired of people thinking
anthropomorphics fandom is being overrun by sexually dysfunctional,
socially stunted and creatively bankrupt hacks and pervs... and think
the solution to this problem is to tell everyone as loudly as possible
that anthropomorphics fandom is being overrun by sexually dysfunctional,
socially stunted and creatively bankrupt hacks and pervs.
In other words, Burned Fur is no better than Loaded, Portal of Evil, The
Daily Show, or Rich Chandler. Not like I really needed to point it out;
most folks have already figured out improving the fandom was never one
of Burned Fur's goals. The Tantrum Heard 'Round The World was just
that---a tantrum---and given Peter Schorn's recent attempts to team up
with AWFR, Meowers, Portal Of Evil, and just about every other troll he
can find, I'm sure we'll see a lot more of the same in the future.
On the other side of the coin, there's folks like me who believe in
improving the fandom by positive methods such as supporting the things
we like and setting a good example. We're pretty quiet, because we
spend our time doing things behind the scenes helping the fandom instead
of yelling and screaming in Soul-Sucking Arguments To Nowhere on
alt.fan.furry.
Which brings me to this my last little observation. I don't want to
disappoint the few people who are reading this, so I'll tell you a
little bit about the better things I've been doing with my time, and
what I'd much rather be doing than get involved in this.
Last weekend, I went out to see Legend of Drunken Master. It was a
pretty cool movie, starring Jackie Chan. It was one of his older films,
but entertaining nonetheless. I also went out bike riding, because
these are cool autumn days and the leaves are changing, and took the
opportunity to explore the sprawling ruins of Forest Glen Seminary. I
saw a fox running down the road on my way there, and a few deer lurking
around among the vacant buildings.
The weekend before that, I was up in New York, hiking on Breakneck
Mountain, which overlooks the Hudson River in the Hudson Highlands. I
also went to explore the basement of King's College, which was abandoned
in 1994 when it went bankrupt, and got plenty of pictures for my modern
ruins page. I spent some time with my family and had a pretty good
time.
Y'know, every time I've come back from these weekend adventures of mine,
I've checked in on AFF to see that Rich Chandler apparently spent his
weekend frothing and raving around on AFF, each time more than the next,
about the same stuff he was frothing and raving about five or more years
ago. And I'd read what he posted, and have these images of poor Rich
Chandler, decades from now, hunched over his keyboard and typing
furiously away on alt.fan.furry on his Courageous And Valiant Uphill
Battle To Save The Fandom From Whatever Damned Thing He's Deluded
Himself Into Thinking Threatens It.
*trumpets blare*
And I'd think about replying, but instead I'd just sort of shake my
head. I think I can say with confidence I got the better end of the
deal.
As I've said before, I've got better things to do.
So does everyone else.[1]
--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
Sign the petition to keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
[1] Well, except the people on Planet Chandler...
I'd be on the edge of my seat waiting to see
if any of this sank in, but y'see, there's
this walking tour tomorrow morning at Forest
Glen Seminary that I want to go to, and I'm
not sure what else I'm going this weekend,
but I'm sure it'll be a lot more interesting
than anything Rich Chandler has planned.
Seeya!
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>Doodles wrote:
[...]
>> I just enjoyed the proof of what a lot of folks have said all
>> along. The Burned Furs are the fandom's equivalent of the ex-gay
>> movement,
>
>Once again, you raise the old lie about Burned Fur being anti-gay.
No, he is drawring an anology.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>Quoth ilr:
>
>>Am I the only one who enjoyed this article?
>
It was a good artical IMHO.
Farlo
>I'm surprised there's any true colors to be seen, after all that
>tar-brushing from both sides. -_-;
What's that? Don't you *like* the smell of tar?
As a kid I used to love the stuff ... 'specially when it was soft.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
deja.com> writes:
> My position, once again, is that if people are going to complain,
> they should complain to someone in a position to do something about it.
>
> My position is frequently (deliberately, I suspect) misinterpreted
> as "don't complain" or "don't point out the fandom's problems." The
> fact remains, I've never said people shouldn't complain about the
> fandom's problems.
The problem there is that "Complain to the people who can do something about
it" combined with your and others' arguments that there is no central
authority in furry fandom, boils down to "Take your complaints to someone who
doesn't exist."
Or perhaps you mean that one should only complain to those individuals who
cause the problem. The problem with this, to take one example, is that nobody
has been able to identify Zoophile 1 through Zoophile 3 who mouthed off to the
reporter from Loaded. Again, the result is "Complain to nobody" which means
"Shut up."
But, to complain publicly on a Forum like a.f.f, there's SOME chance that the
people being complained about will hear the complaints and understand that
they have hurt and offended other people and damaged the fandom. It's like
sticking up a lost and found notice. You're not sure if the message will
connect, but it's better than doing nothing.
> Burned Fur is a group that's (supposedly) tired of people
> thinking anthropomorphics fandom is being overrun by
> sexually dysfunctional, socially stunted and creatively bankrupt hacks
> and pervs... and think the solution to this problem is to tell everyone
> as loudly as possible that anthropomorphics fandom is being overrun
> by sexually dysfunctional, socially stunted and creatively bankrupt
> hacks and pervs.
Yanno, the first part is right, but the second part is wrong. But you can
only see what's happening on a.f.f, and not what's going on behind the scenes,
which is the idea.
miertam(at)aa.net
>In article <m83ivska9242dggnl...@4ax.com>,
>Dennis Lee Bieber <wulf...@dm.net> wrote:
>> All I see is a reference the BF, as a group, filling a role SIMILAR
>>to that of the "ex-gay" group (though I've not quite figured out what
>>"ex-gay" represents... a group of former gay individuals who now denounce
>>that aspect of their lives?)
>
>The "ex-gay" movement attempts to change gays into straights through
>various forms of therapy. Many people are rather skeptical of whether
>that's even possible though, and recently, the prominent chairman of
>one of the conversion groups was spotted in a gay bar
><http://www.planetout.com/pno/people/features/2000/06/exgay/>
>
It's called brainwashing, not therapy. From what I have heard about the process
it involves some fairly draconian (my apologies to all scalies) treatments for
about a year to a year and a half, including physical/mental torturer, sleep
depravation, and starvation diets. and of course all of it is "legal" because
some judge declared the gays in question to be mentally incompetent and put them
in the custody of their gay-hateing relatives. :P:P
>The movie "But I'm a Cheerleader" <http://www.butimacheerleader.com/>
>spoofs the movement, and <http://www.bettybowers.com/bashpaulk.html>
>is rather amusing too :)
------------------------------------------
Mier'Tam
The most important thing about magic is how you don't use it.
Esk
Wonder Enis Gheen Wonder
Simon Stevin
Kyle L. Webb
"Hangdog" <peter....@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:0FFE0ADED6CC1AD5.86DB5DD3...@lp.airnews.net...
> fer...@enteract.com wrote:
>
> > Oh come on. The BF haven't actually done anything other than run their
> > mouths since the Heifer Hop at AC
>
> Well, you've got me there: since we're burdened with things like good
jobs, higher education,
> real-life relationships and interesting hobbies, we can't devote the time
to the fandom that
> you can.
You know, you keep saying that, but I've seen fairly little evidence of it
compared to the rest of the fandom. I know a lot of the ALF denizens, and a
higher rate of them have advanced degrees, high paying computer or other
technical jobs and spouses than the BFs I've met. (I'll omit the interesting
hobbies cause what defines an interesting hobby can be debated. I do know
quite a number of hams, musicians, Medieval re-enactors, and such among the
ALFers. I'd consider those 'interesting' hobbies.)
I think the clothes on your emperor are a bit breezy.
Kyle L. Webb
Hartree Fox on yiffnet
Brian O'connell
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt kids...:)
"invisicat" <nee...@neerner.com> wrote in message
news:8FDAA3DD5...@209.125.35.22...
Timothy Fay
>
> fayxx001@delete..this..tc.umn.edu> writes:
> > just pick up a copy of GALLERY and you'll see
>
> Have you ever? I'd stack up the adult content of any given issue of Gallery
> agains tthe adult content of any other Furry 'zine and we would see a big
> difference in the quality and maturity of the material.
No, Richard -- no one in Minneapolis ever buys GALLERY, so I never
get to see it. I'm just making this all up as I go along.
...But assuming that I'm not, then I can say without reservation
quality and maturity are mostly absent from the so-called "adult"
material I've seen in GALLERY. What I've seen are mostly banal
pin-ups with a juvenile fixation on certain parts of the anatomy.
Why people waste their talents on this trash is beyond me (other
than this stuff $ells). A pity, too, because most of the non-
"spooge" in GALLERY is fairly well done. The problem is, that's
not what is likely to attract the attention of the casual reader.
Oddly enough, one of your members tried for quite a while to get
me to join your APA. I'd tell you who it was, but the irony might
cause your head to explode.
> I also disagree that a connection to adult material is more
> damaging than a connection to sexual dysfunction like Bestiality.
That's just splitting hairs. Most non-furries -- the outsiders whose
opinion of furry fandom concerns some people so much -- usually
don't make any distinction between animal and semi-animal ("furry").
Any "adult" material involving furries is likely to be viewed as
deviant, at best, like Atara said earlier in this thread.
--
http://www.umn.edu/~fayxx001
"Bowl a strike, not a spare -- revolution everywhere!" -RABL motto
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
> > Have you ever? I'd stack up the adult content of any given issue
> > the material.
>
> No, Richard -- no one in Minneapolis ever buys GALLERY, so I never get
> to see it. I'm just making this all up as I go along.
>
> material I've seen in GALLERY. What I've seen are mostly banal
> pin-ups with a juvenile fixation on certain parts of the anatomy.
But, to go back to the question you skipped, is it better or worse than the
"Juvenile Erotica" of other Furry 'zines that have erotica? Actually, given
your attitude toward erotica, I'm not entirely sure you're qualified to judge
the levels of quality in erotica.
> Oddly enough, one of your members tried for quite a while to get me
> to join your APA. I'd tell you who it was, but the irony might cause
> your head to explode.
Frankly, It wouldn't matter to me who it was, you would likely be a very poor
fit in Gallery.
And you know, looking over the reader survey, not one of the respondants
listed your name under the artists they wished me to try to recruit.
> > I also disagree that a connection to adult material is more
> > damaging than a connection to sexual dysfunction like Bestiality.
>
> That's just splitting hairs. Most non-furries -- the outsiders
> whose opinion of furry fandom concerns some people so much --
> usually don't make any distinction between animal and semi-animal
> ("furry").
> Any "adult" material involving furries is likely to be viewed as
> deviant, at best, like Atara said earlier in this thread.
So then, would you agree to the statement that the Burned Furs do not go far
enough, since they are not opposed to erotica? Are your views then more in
line with those of Ben Bruin?
Timothy Fay
>
> But, to go back to the question you skipped, is it better or worse
> than the "Juvenile Erotica" of other Furry 'zines that have erotica?
"Better" or "worse" is immaterial. It probably would not make a
difference to the casual, outside observer. As I and others have
said, *any* sort of "adult" artwork -- "better," "worse," or
in-between -- involving characters with animal-like characteristics
will probably be regarded as "deviant" by a large percentage of
those observers.
And while there is some material in GALLERY I like (I'd mention
examples, if I wasn't afraid it would be the Kiss of Death for
those artists :) ), it is definitely not on my list of things I
would show to someone with no prior contact with "furry" fandom.
> Actually, given
> your attitude toward erotica, I'm not entirely sure you're qualified
> to judge the levels of quality in erotica.
That's like saying becase I'm not a fly, I'm not qualified to judge
the levels of quality in refuse.
...Okay, I'll buy that. :)
> Timothy Fay wrote:
> > Oddly enough, one of your members tried for quite a while to get me
> > to join your APA. I'd tell you who it was, but the irony might
> > cause your head to explode.
>
> Frankly, It wouldn't matter to me who it was, you would likely be a
> very poor fit in Gallery.
Agreed, and that is one of the reasons why I never followed up on
the suggestion (another is that I simply don't have the time to
contribute to more than one APA these days, and I'm already in
ROWR-BRAZZLE).
> And you know, looking over the reader survey, not one of the
> respondants
> listed your name under the artists they wished me to try to recruit.
Don't believe everything you read. :)
Timothy Fay
>
> But, to go back to the question you skipped, is it better or worse
> than the "Juvenile Erotica" of other Furry 'zines that have erotica?
"Better" or "worse" is immaterial. It probably would not make a
difference to the casual, outside observer. As I and others have
said, *any* sort of "adult" artwork -- "better," "worse," or
in-between -- involving characters with animal-like characteristics
will probably be regarded as "deviant" by a large percentage of
those observers.
And while there is some material in GALLERY I like (I'd mention
examples, if I wasn't afraid it would be the Kiss of Death for
those artists :) ), it is definitely not on my list of things I
would show to someone with no prior contact with "furry" fandom.
> So then, would you agree to the statement that the Burned Furs do
> not go far enough, since they are not opposed to erotica? Are your
> views then more in line with those of Ben Bruin?
I'm not sure what Mr. Bruin's views are, so I can't say. I share
many of the Burned Furs' stated concerns (except the part about
the vegetarians :) ), but I strongly disagree with their tactics.
> Actually, given
> your attitude toward erotica, I'm not entirely sure you're qualified
> to judge the levels of quality in erotica.
That's like saying becase I'm not a fly, I'm not qualified to judge
the levels of quality in garbage.
...Okay, I'll buy that. :)
But I'll also add that "levels of quality in erotica," apart from
being a bloody oxymoron, is irrelevant. It is not the quality or
content of some types of furry "adult" material that is bad for
the fandom's reputation, but the fact that it exists and is so
seemingly pervasive.
> Timothy Fay wrote:
> > Oddly enough, one of your members tried for quite a while to get me
> > to join your APA. I'd tell you who it was, but the irony might
> > cause your head to explode.
>
> Frankly, It wouldn't matter to me who it was, you would likely be a
> very poor fit in Gallery.
Agreed, and that is one of the reasons why I never followed up on
the suggestion (lack of time was another).
> And you know, looking over the reader survey, not one of the
> respondants
> listed your name under the artists they wished me to try to recruit.
Don't believe everything you read. :)
--
Hangdog
Actually, I was referring only to ferret @interact.com
What made you think I was referring to *you?*
--Hangdog ;o)
Jim Doolittle
<D2052B0A33ACC5DD.1A563FEA...@lp.airnews.net>,
Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
> Actually, I was referring only to ferret @interact.com
>
> What made you think I was referring to *you?*
Well, you blanket-generalize everyone else...
-Jim, who happens to know said ferret...he's married, has a job, and is
a very well-adjusted human being.
Oh, except for the fact that he disagrees with Hangdog. Can't have that.
--
Jim Doolittle CornWuff Press
dool...@tbcnet.com http://www.cornwuff.com
Art Show Director, Midwest FurFest
http://www.furfest.org
Hangdog
> In article
> <D2052B0A33ACC5DD.1A563FEA...@lp.airnews.net>,
> Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
>
> > Actually, I was referring only to ferret @interact.com
> >
> > What made you think I was referring to *you?*
>
> Well, you blanket-generalize everyone else...
Must...not...comment on...irony...MUST...NOT...
> -Jim, who happens to know said ferret...he's married, has a job, and is
> a very well-adjusted human being.
*shrug* Bully for him, then. I'd've thought he'd understand a little bit
better about life getting in the way. But perhaps it's all a question of
priorities...
> Oh, except for the fact that he disagrees with Hangdog. Can't have that.
"O! I am slayne!"
--Shakespere, _Hamlet_
Kyle L. Webb
Who has a wife, a job and some neat hobbies. I've never asked him how much
college he attended. but he seems bright and well educated. Maybe I'll ask
him when I see him this weekend. He does seem to accomplish a lot of good
things both in and out of furry, and seems to be quite a busy sort. Your
implication that he's a loser with no life is pretty far from reality.
>
> What made you think I was referring to *you?*
I didn't.
You've made this as a general statement about those opposed to you in the
past (for example in the intro to the BF message board.), implying that the
BFs have more of a "real life" than others. I see little evidence it has
much relationship to reality. It does seem to be a handy rationalization
though.
Bahumat
> Oh, don't thank us yet. We have lots more to do :o)
>
Like saving my fandom. Oh, wait...
Bahumat
Doug Winger
<lonely...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <8t9lf6$6e$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
> bdy...@network.boxmail.com wrote:
> > At the risk of throwing fuel onto a fire that never dies:
> >
> > http://www.brunching.com/features/furries.html
> >
> > It equates furrydom with sex <snip>It also mentions the Burned
> > Furs, though probably not in a way they'd like.
>
> Pretty much. For those who weren't paying attention, though-- and for
> the majority who are functionally incapable of adding two and two
> without getting seventeen--- *it wasn't the Burned Furs that drew their
> attention.* The mention they give to the Burned Furs boils down to
> "These guys say it *isn't* a pervert farm. Shyeah, right." It's more an
> implicit condemnation of Burned Fur's too-little, too-late attempt to
> salvage the fandom's nasty reputation.
> Basic math, people:
> Thousands personal sites.
> Hundreds of personal archives with porn.
> Hundreds more "furry erotic stories" that would make Larry Flynt
> upchuck.
> God-only-knows how many FAQs proclaiming the affinity between Furry
> Fandom, bestiality, plushophilia, polyamory, sex kinks, and
> WiccaPagaNewAgeBullshiTotemism.
> Versus
> 1 site complaining about it.
> Who do you think they saw first?
> And furthermore, I'd bet cold hard cash that they found a link to the
> Burned Furs on some "Freezing Furs/FurPride" hissyfit page... after
> wading thru the porno, werewolf, vore, and bestiality support-group
> links.
>
> Now that all the fandom's dirty laundry is rapidly whirling thru
> neighborhood on the wind for all the world to see, I'd just like to
> say....
>
> HI, MANAWOLF, XYDEXX, DOUG WINGER, AND COMPANY. ***THANKS SO MUCH FOR
> THE FRICKING P.R. WORK.***
>
I can't speak for the rest, but you're welcome.
And your math needs work, m'man, or at least your reading comprehension.
While he did give nodding mention to the 'sexual deviates' you go on about, he
editorially shrugged, winked, and so much as said, "To each their own." Sushi,
anyone?
Go back and re-read that article, and note well who came in first on his
scorn meter and who he wrote upon in the greatest detail. It seems to me that
you weren't the one paying attention.
- Doug, Busily Destroying Ben's Fandom Since '94
p.s. Apologies to the rest, and even Ben, but I'm feeling snappish. This
latest misinterpretation of reality is yet more evidence that few here
actually manage to read things are they're written, but somehow can manage to
add in something that _nobody else sees written there_. No doubt, they're
using their keen extrasensory perception to accertain the _real_ truth behind
what's being written, even though it's been cleverly been left out to mislead
folks. They then use that certain knowledge in an attempt to bash their
"opponents" [read: people they don't like] over the head with, displaying a
degree of zeal nowadays only seen at some SCA tournaments. That I could live
with, but it's the complete and utter lack of any discernible sense of humor
shown that really annoys me.
Ben Bruin
---
"What was that popping noise?"
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
Dilbert
Al Goldman
<snip>
Ben, we've been discussing the Brunching Shuttlecocks article
for more than a week. Jumping in at the end of a thread and
throwing a hissy fit won't help.
If you had bothered to read AFF for the last week or two you
would know, for example, why I feel all external press exposure
can't hurt the fandom. Then you may have been able to post
something interesting in contrast to my comments.
Instead, you just walk in here and throw shit all over the place.
Newbie Rule - read a group for a week or two before posting.
Expert Rule - read a group for a week or two before posting,
even if you know what the group is about, so you don't
make a foolish, flaming idiot of yourself by rehashing old
business.
Al Goldman
Laws are sand, Customs are rock. Laws can be evaded and punishment excaped, but
an openly transgressed custom brings sure punishement.
- Mark Twain
Wanderer
>In article <8t9lf6$6e$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
> bdy...@network.boxmail.com wrote:
>> At the risk of throwing fuel onto a fire that never dies:
>>
>> http://www.brunching.com/features/furries.html
>>
>> It equates furrydom with sex <snip>It also mentions the Burned
>> Furs, though probably not in a way they'd like.
>
>Pretty much. For those who weren't paying attention, though-- and for
>the majority who are functionally incapable of adding two and two
>without getting seventeen--- *it wasn't the Burned Furs that drew their
>attention.* The mention they give to the Burned Furs boils down to
>"These guys say it *isn't* a pervert farm. Shyeah, right." It's more an
>implicit condemnation of Burned Fur's too-little, too-late attempt to
>salvage the fandom's nasty reputation.
Um, sorry, love, but that's not what I get from:
"Enter the "Burned Furs," a splinter Furry group made up of people who have
an obsession with fuzzy tiger head people but who are tired of being thought
of as abnormal. Their stance is that it's perfectly okay to spend eight
weeks and five hundred dollars on a homemade badger suit so that you can
wear it in public, but if you have sex in it you're just weird. It's like a
Trek fan saying "Well, sure, I'm fluent in Klingon, but that guy used it for
his wedding ceremony! Let's all mock him!" "
To draw a different version of the same parallel, they see the Burned Furs
as saying, "Yeah, maybe I spent hundreds of thousands of dollars recreating
Captain Kirk's quarters on the original Enterprise, but *that* guy actually
has *sex* on the bed! *He's* weird, while *I* am simply someone who
appreciates a classic work of television."
Worse:
"The very fact that the Burned Furs had to organize makes one doubt their
proposition that Furryfolk aren't primarily in it for the eros. Nobody's had
to form a group to convince people that concert pianists aren't sexual
deviants. If I came across an organization arguing that people who sell
produce at Farmer's Markets aren't all actually f___ing their vegetables,
I'd certainly start examining my broccoflower more closely before cooking
it."
(Please pardon my censoring of the Germanic word in the above. One never
knows where young furs may lurk ... )
Basically, "If this isn't true, then why do they need to form an
organization telling people it isn't true? Sounds like the Flat Earth
Society to me."
And again I say, I have no idea where you find people with who Furrydom has
developed a reputation. Unless I specifically mention "Bugs Bunny", I can't
get a spark of recognition in my not-so-little corner of Texas.
Yours wolfishly,
The virginal,
Wanderer**wand...@ticnet.com
Where am I going?I don't quite know.
What does it matter where people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow.
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I*don't know!
Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
> HI, MANAWOLF, XYDEXX, DOUG WINGER, AND COMPANY.
> ***THANKS SO MUCH FOR THE FRICKING P.R. WORK.***
Awww. You're so sexy when you say thank you, Ben.
*lots of ponykisses*
--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
Sign the petition to keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> If you had bothered to read AFF for the last week or two you would
> know, for example, why I feel all external press exposure can't hurt
> the fandom. Then you may have been able to post something interesting
> in contrast to my comments.
That's the "What we do is legal, so who gives a fig what the rest of the world
says about us?" theory of Furry fandom and bad PR, right?
Now, just for fairness, let's approach this from two other angles. Are there
other activities out there that are legal, get bad PR, and have been harmed by
it? I'm sure you can come up with some examples. I can give you two totally
divergent examples.
Joining the Klan is legal. But they have such bad PR that it would probably
harm you personally and professionally. (On the other hand, the people who
generally do join already have the attitude and have probably done to
themselves all the damage they attribute to other races, but that's another
thread.)
Skateboarding is legal. At least it was at first. But then it got overrun by
vandals and irresponsible punks who did damage and knocked people over, and
got a lot of other unfortunate activities associated with skateboarding. Call
that bad PR. How did skateboarding get hurt? Laws were passed in many
municipalities making skateboarding illegal, and signs were put up in places
banning it. But through the very hard work of some people who know that there
is a very exciting sport at the center of it, there has been some
rehabilitation of Skateboarding's image in the last decade, and instead of
banning skateboarding, many municipalities are building skateboard parks and
keeping kids out of the trouble with vandalism and drugs.
Furry fandom could be hurt very badly by bad PR. It may be true that nobody's
going to put up "No Furries" signs in the strip malls, and we're not going to
have Furry parades with protestors lining the streets shouting "hey hey, ho
ho, Furry Fandom's got to go!", but I'm sure you can see that the fandom could
get into legal trouble that would hurt it a lot. Let's say that someone in
the Justice Department decides that furry erotica, involving children's
cartoon characters and sexual acts is designed as a tool for pedophilia to
lure children. We all know that such material is actually for adults, not
children, but Special Agent Johnson doesn't care, he's got a career to make.
What do you think might happen to the fandom then? Would you consider that
harm?
We're legal now, yes indeed. But that is not an excuse to be blithely
uncaring about bad PR. Legality can change in the blink of an eye. Like the
skateboarders, we need to try to change our image. The best defense against
losing against the law is good PR. Sometimes it's the only defense.
And legality is not the only form of harm from bad PR. The fandom is harmed
when people who are good members of the fandom leave because they can't take
the bad PR any more. The fandom is also hurt when bad PR simultaniously keeps
good people from wanting to join, and encourages bad people to join.
No group can ignore its public image for long and remain unaffected. If you
continue to believe otherwise, you should arrange to trade handles with
Ostrich.
Al Goldman
(Richard Chandler - WA Resident) writes:
>In article <20001105063720...@nso-fq.aol.com>,
>allan...@aol.comNARF (Al Goldman) writes:
>> If you had bothered to read AFF for the last week or two you would
>> know, for example, why I feel all external press exposure can't hurt
>> the fandom. Then you may have been able to post something interesting
>> in contrast to my comments.
>That's the "What we do is legal, so who gives a fig what the rest of the
>world says about us?" theory of Furry fandom and bad PR, right?
No.
My point to Ben Bruin was that if he had bothered to read AFF before he posted
his typical anti-fandom rant he hight have been able to contribute something
usefull.
More latter, furry PR wise. You did bring up some new ideas.
Artist
"Richard Chandler - WA Resident" <mau...@kendra.com> wrote in message
news:001106190...@mauser.at.kendra.com...
<snippety>
I can see your point of view. Now show me where any of that stuff has
allready happened. :)
It looks like another 'credit card scare' to me. :)
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
mell...@yahoo.com> writes:
> I can see your point of view. Now show me where any of that stuff
> has allready happened. :)
> It looks like another 'credit card scare' to me. :)
Thinking of another thread, you are coming off like someone who thinks it's a
good idea to buckle one's seatbelt after the crash.
It's hard to point out the alternate history, where Furry Fandom entered a
golden era. When bestialists didn't flock to FurryMuck after the Wired
article, where Loaded wrote up CF as Cool and Sexy instead of dumb and
pathetic, where Warner Brothers bought the rights to produce an animated
Saturday Usagi Yojimbo. Hindsight is 20/20, but seeing into alternate futures
takes a different kind of vision.
Artist
> In article <7f_N5.797$RR2.1...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>, "Artist" <
> mell...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > I can see your point of view. Now show me where any of that stuff
> > has allready happened. :)
> > It looks like another 'credit card scare' to me. :)
>
> Thinking of another thread, you are coming off like someone who thinks
it's a
> good idea to buckle one's seatbelt after the crash.
Yeah. This is true. I think a better example is a lightning bolt. Highly
unlikely to happen, but devestating when it does. :)
> It's hard to point out the alternate history, where Furry Fandom
entered a
> golden era. When bestialists didn't flock to FurryMuck after the
Wired
> article, where Loaded wrote up CF as Cool and Sexy instead of dumb and
> pathetic, where Warner Brothers bought the rights to produce an
animated
> Saturday Usagi Yojimbo. Hindsight is 20/20, but seeing into alternate
futures
> takes a different kind of vision.
Agreed. :) The 20/20 thing anyways. :)
Al Goldman
(Richard Chandler - WA Resident) writes:
>Joining the Klan is legal.
<snip>
>Skateboarding is legal.
<snip>
Both examples are irrelevant since furry fandom has no victims and
no outside opponents. We don't actively seek to harm outsiders We
have no PR with the general public.
But when we become known to the public...
>Furry fandom could be hurt very badly by bad PR. It may be true that
>nobody's going to put up "No Furries" signs in the strip malls, and we're not
going to
>have Furry parades with protestors lining the streets shouting "hey hey, ho
>ho, Furry Fandom's got to go!", but I'm sure you can see that the fandom
>could get into legal trouble that would hurt it a lot. Let's say that someone
in
>the Justice Department decides that furry erotica, involving children's
>cartoon characters and sexual acts is designed as a tool for pedophilia to
>lure children. We all know that such material is actually for adults, not
>children, but Special Agent Johnson doesn't care, he's got a career to make.
>What do you think might happen to the fandom then? Would you consider that
>harm?
As a fanzine publisher, how would you handle this? Sheepishly stop publishing
adult material in Gallery because it someday might be deemed illegal?
I doubt they could make this stick - They would have to show it was the intent
of
the artist, not the pedophile, to harm children. Big constitutional issues
anyway
- You’re assuming a world where low level bureaucrats can override
constitutionally
guaranteed freedoms. Johnson's boss would him a stern lecture and send
him back to his cubical :-)
Furry adult material is legal. Canadian customs has repeated intercepted furry
comics at the border and I’m sure reported the fact to there US counterparts
in customs and the postal service. I’ve never heard of a single furry
publisher
being convicted of obscenity. (I have not read CBG for a few years, so I might
be wrong)
>We're legal now, yes indeed. But that is not an excuse to be blithely
>uncaring about bad PR. Legality can change in the blink of an eye.
Wrong. The constitution won't change any time soon
>And legality is not the only form of harm from bad PR. The fandom is harmed
>when people who are good members of the fandom leave because they can't take
>the bad PR any more. The fandom is also hurt when bad PR simultaniously
>keeps good people from wanting to join, and encourages bad people to join.
Big problem is defining "Good" and "Bad" people. I consider “Bad” people
the ones who force their opinions concerning legal conduct on others,
and “Good” people the ones who accept the diversity of the fandom and
dwell on what then enjoy.
As for what I think your definition of "Bad", the major rise in public decorum
(and smell!) at furry cons in the last few years shows thing have gotten
better. When we
get public decorum + tolerance, we'll have a fandom for every interested adult.
Al Goldman
(Richard Chandler - WA Resident) writes:
>n article <7f_N5.797$RR2.1...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>, "Artist" <
>mell...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> I can see your point of view. Now show me where any of that stuff
>> has allready happened. :)
>> It looks like another 'credit card scare' to me. :)
>It's hard to point out the alternate history, where Furry Fandom entered a
>golden era. When bestialists didn't flock to FurryMuck after the Wired
>article, where Loaded wrote up CF as Cool and Sexy instead of dumb and
>pathetic, where Warner Brothers bought the rights to produce an animated
>Saturday Usagi Yojimbo. Hindsight is 20/20, but seeing into alternate
>futures takes a different kind of vision.
Problem is, your alternate future has nothing to do with current reality.
Furry fandom is as much general audience material as it is adult material
- Thousands of adult pictures, stories, websites, mucks, and chats.
Blumrich one spoke of "Burning down the fandom and building a new
on top of the ashes". (See him for details :-) What percentage of the
fandom would you destroy in order to save it, and would Gallery have
a place in that alternate fandom?
Chuck Melville
Al Goldman wrote:
> In article <001106190...@mauser.at.kendra.com>, mau...@kendra.com
> (Richard Chandler - WA Resident) writes:
>
>
>
> >Furry fandom could be hurt very badly by bad PR. It may be true that
> >nobody's going to put up "No Furries" signs in the strip malls, and we're not
> going to
> >have Furry parades with protestors lining the streets shouting "hey hey, ho
> >ho, Furry Fandom's got to go!", but I'm sure you can see that the fandom
> >could get into legal trouble that would hurt it a lot. Let's say that someone
> in
> >the Justice Department decides that furry erotica, involving children's
> >cartoon characters and sexual acts is designed as a tool for pedophilia to
> >lure children. We all know that such material is actually for adults, not
> >children, but Special Agent Johnson doesn't care, he's got a career to make.
> >What do you think might happen to the fandom then? Would you consider that
> >harm?
>
> As a fanzine publisher, how would you handle this? Sheepishly stop publishing
> adult material in Gallery because it someday might be deemed illegal?
>
> I doubt they could make this stick - They would have to show it was the intent
> of
> the artist, not the pedophile, to harm children. Big constitutional issues
> anyway
> - You’re assuming a world where low level bureaucrats can override
> constitutionally
> guaranteed freedoms. Johnson's boss would him a stern lecture and send
> him back to his cubical :-)
Don't be so certain that it -can't- happen. It already has. The Mike Diana -
BOILED ANGEL case of a few years ago. Diana wrote and drew his own zine, full of
crude work with crude humor and godawful art, all with obscene language and very,
very disturbing visuals. He was arrested and taken to court for producing obscene
material. He lost the case. It was appealed. He lost the appeal. Even with the
Comic Book Defense League taking his case, he lost.
His sentence? He is forbidden to ever draw again. And they -do- check up on
him to make sure of it.
>
>
> Furry adult material is legal. Canadian customs has repeated intercepted furry
> comics at the border and I’m sure reported the fact to there US counterparts
> in customs and the postal service. I’ve never heard of a single furry
> publisher
> being convicted of obscenity. (I have not read CBG for a few years, so I might
> be wrong)
Not yet, but furry Adult comics -have- been seized at the Canadian border on
occassion, or denied entry when shipped; I can vouch for that, since I was working
at Diamond a few years back and saw it happen. (Once or twice, it was because it
was believed the books were about bestiality, which was a no-no with Canada
Customs.)
>
>
> >We're legal now, yes indeed. But that is not an excuse to be blithely
> >uncaring about bad PR. Legality can change in the blink of an eye.
>
> Wrong. The constitution won't change any time soon
Why not? Has before. That's why we got all those Amendments. Could happen
again.
>
>
> >And legality is not the only form of harm from bad PR. The fandom is harmed
> >when people who are good members of the fandom leave because they can't take
> >the bad PR any more. The fandom is also hurt when bad PR simultaniously
> >keeps good people from wanting to join, and encourages bad people to join.
>
> Big problem is defining "Good" and "Bad" people. I consider “Bad�€* people
> the ones who force their opinions concerning legal conduct on others,
> and “Good�€* people the ones who accept the diversity of the fandom and
> dwell on what then enjoy.
If it's a matter of legal conduct, then it's scarcely a matter of opinion...
it's a matter of legality.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
mell...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Yeah. This is true. I think a better example is a lightning bolt.
> Highly unlikely to happen, but devestating when it does. :)
But Furry fandom is a lighting rod. Every time we get ANY press, it's really
just a matter of how bad it is. Some is more than others, but it's never
good. Recently I ran across an old article about the San Diego Comic Con
where the author called Furries "The lowest of the low, second only to
Filkers." They ran my rebuttal letter and several others in a later issue of
the paper.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> As a fanzine publisher, how would you handle this? Sheepishly
> stop publishing adult material in Gallery because it someday might
> be deemed illegal?
It's something I have worries about, which is why I a) have a Mature Readers
label, b) require age statements from subscribers, c) do not allow trademarked
cartoon characters, and d) do not allow bestiality.
> I doubt they could make this stick - They would have to show it was
> the intent of the artist, not the pedophile, to harm children. Big
> constitutional issues anyway
> - You’re assuming a world where low level bureaucrats can
> override constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Johnson's boss would him a
> stern lecture and send him back to his cubical :-)
Two Words. Michael Diana.
> Furry adult material is legal. Canadian customs has repeated
> intercepted furry comics at the border and I’m sure reported the fact
> to there US counterparts in customs and the postal service. I’ve
> never heard of a single furry publisher
> being convicted of obscenity. (I have not read CBG for a few years, so
> I might be wrong)
Yes, Canada Customs has seized or returned lots of furry material at the
border. Ask Ed Zolna about the trouble he's had. But Canadian law is
different from the US and Canadian Customs does NOT report to US Customs what
it has seized.
> >We're legal now, yes indeed. But that is not an excuse to be
> >blithely uncaring about bad PR. Legality can change in the blink of
> >an eye.
>
> Wrong. The constitution won't change any time soon
There are so many abridgements of free speech it's not funny, particularly
when it comes to "Porn", especially kiddie porn. And now they're working on
"Hate Speech" and other things with flexible definitions. You can believe in
the First amendment, but it's starting to have about as much power and respect
as the Second amendment.
> >And legality is not the only form of harm from bad PR. The fandom
> >is harmed when people who are good members of the fandom leave
> >because they can't take the bad PR any more. The fandom is also
> >hurt when bad PR simultaniously keeps good people from wanting to
> >join, and encourages bad people to join.
>
> Big problem is defining "Good" and "Bad" people. I consider �€
> œBad” people the ones who force their opinions concerning legal
> conduct on others, and “Good” people the ones who accept the
> diversity of the fandom and dwell on what then enjoy.
Does your acceptance of diversity include publicly embracing Zoophilia and
Plushophila as a part of the fandom? How diverse is Diverse? Should Star
Wars fans should come to ConFurence for Ewok stuff? There are limits or else
the term Furry Fandom becomes meaningless.
I think it's really easy to define some of the good people. Yeah, there's a
grey area in the middle, but the edges are easy. I miss Tom Verre's art so
much. He's one who left. There are far too many others.
> As for what I think your definition of "Bad", the major rise in
> public decorum (and smell!) at furry cons in the last few years
> shows thing have gotten better. When we get public decorum + tolerance,
> we'll have a fandom for every interested adult.
Tolerance is what has allowed things like poor decorum and those unfortunate
interests to become a problem in the first place. The recent changes are
because people (not just the BFs) have become intolerant.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
allan...@aol.comNARF (Al Goldman) writes:
> In article <001108124...@mauser.at.kendra.com>, mauser@
> kendra.com (Richard Chandler - WA Resident) writes:
> >It's hard to point out the alternate history, where Furry Fandom
> >entered a golden era. When bestialists didn't flock to FurryMuck
> >after the Wired article, where Loaded wrote up CF as Cool and
> >Sexy instead of dumb and pathetic, where Warner Brothers bought
> >the rights to produce an animated Saturday Usagi Yojimbo. Hindsight
> >is 20/20, but seeing into alternate futures takes a different kind
> >of vision.
>
> Problem is, your alternate future has nothing to do with current
> reality.
Well DUH! That's why it's an ALTERNATE reality. But anyone who has been
around this fandom long enough knows where we made the wrong turns.
> Furry fandom is as much general audience material as it is adult
> material - Thousands of adult pictures, stories, websites, mucks, and chats.
I know that. Hell, I had nearly an equal number of G section panels in the
Conifur art show as I did in the R and X sections combined. I've made that
case before. And once again, this year that top selling item was a G-rated
picture.
> Blumrich one spoke of "Burning down the fandom and building a new on
> top of the ashes". (See him for details :-) What percentage of the
> fandom would you destroy in order to save it, and would Gallery have
> a place in that alternate fandom?
Certainly. However, you're setting up a straw man, somewhat incompletely, on
the issue of adult material. I've made it abundantly clear in the past what
it is I would prefer to reside outside of the fandom than within its penumbra.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>Um, do you have the case citing for this. It sounds like the judge greatly
>exceeded his authority on that sentence. While an appeal of the conviction
>might fail, I bet he'd win an appeal on the sentence or at least get it
>given a specific time frame. You don't get a lifetime penalty for anything
>other than the most serious felonies like muder or kidnapping.
I beleave its only during his probation.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
Rust
>
> In article <FpkO5.164569$JS3.24...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>, "Artist" <
> mell...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Yeah. This is true. I think a better example is a lightning bolt.
> > Highly unlikely to happen, but devestating when it does. :)
>
> But Furry fandom is a lighting rod.
Only the parts that stand up and yell at the clouds, really.
-Rust
--
We are the instruments of creation - what we dream, is.
Remove ".netspam" from my address to reply
Rust
>
> Al Goldman wrote:
>
> > In article <001106190...@mauser.at.kendra.com>, mau...@kendra.com
> >
> >
> >
> > >nobody's going to put up "No Furries" signs in the strip malls, and we're not
> > going to
> > >have Furry parades with protestors lining the streets shouting "hey hey, ho
> > >ho, Furry Fandom's got to go!", but I'm sure you can see that the fandom
> > >could get into legal trouble that would hurt it a lot. Let's say that someone
> > in
> > >the Justice Department decides that furry erotica, involving children's
> > >cartoon characters and sexual acts is designed as a tool for pedophilia to
> > >lure children. We all know that such material is actually for adults, not
> > >children, but Special Agent Johnson doesn't care, he's got a career to make.
> > >What do you think might happen to the fandom then? Would you consider that
> > >harm?
> >
> > adult material in Gallery because it someday might be deemed illegal?
> >
> > of
> > the artist, not the pedophile, to harm children. Big constitutional issues
> > anyway
> > - You’re assuming a world where low level bureaucrats can override
> > constitutionally
> > guaranteed freedoms. Johnson's boss would him a stern lecture and send
> > him back to his cubical :-)
>
> BOILED ANGEL case of a few years ago. Diana wrote and drew his own zine, full of
> crude work with crude humor and godawful art, all with obscene language and very,
> very disturbing visuals. He was arrested and taken to court for producing obscene
> material. He lost the case. It was appealed. He lost the appeal. Even with the
> Comic Book Defense League taking his case, he lost.
>
> His sentence? He is forbidden to ever draw again. And they -do- check up on
> him to make sure of it.
Sounds like a fairly clear and serious breach of constitutional rights,
to me. Forbidden to display his art, I could understand. But forbidden
to draw? That's beyond Draconic law, that's out and out persecution.
> > Furry adult material is legal. Canadian customs has repeated intercepted furry
> > comics at the border and I’m sure reported the fact to there US counterparts
> > in customs and the postal service. I’ve never heard of a single furry
> > publisher
> > being convicted of obscenity. (I have not read CBG for a few years, so I might
> > be wrong)
>
> Not yet, but furry Adult comics -have- been seized at the Canadian border on
> occassion, or denied entry when shipped; I can vouch for that, since I was working
> at Diamond a few years back and saw it happen. (Once or twice, it was because it
> was believed the books were about bestiality, which was a no-no with Canada
> Customs.)
They seize any erotica they like at the Canadian border, and use any
excuse to do so. Somewhere at some border crossing, there's a bathroom
with a mile-high stack of Penthouse and Genus.
Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
> When we get public decorum + tolerance, we'll have a fandom for
> every interested adult.
Careful, Al. You're starting to sound like you think the fandom should
be a cool place for everyone who likes anthropomorphic animals. Haven't
you learned yet that nothing will destroy the fandom quicker than
everyone enjoying it? -:)
Tolerance---people treating each other with respect even though they
disagree---is an important element of common courtesy we see far too
little of, especially here on AFF. I try to give people as many chances
as I can, because I recognize diversity is a Good Thing and everyone has
things to share and contribute.
I think most people understand that furry fans come from a wide variety
of backgrounds. Folks who embrace public decorum and tolerance in this
fandom have an easier time dealing with that fact than the folks who
think they can [or have to] trade one for the other. In other words,
common courtesy is about public decorum _and_ tolerance, not public
decorum _or_ tolerance.
Chuck Melville
Mathue wrote:
> In article <8FE752E4Cw...@209.125.35.22>, Duncan da Husky
> <tab...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> > During the course of his probation, Diana's residence
> > can be inspected at any time, without warning or warrant, to determine if
> > he is in possession of, or is creating, "obscene material." In other words,
> > if Diana is caught so much as sketching on a cocktail napkin, he could be
> > thrown in jail."
>
> Ahh, ok, that's makes a little more sense. I assume he's long since
> out from probation. Hopefully he's learned being cude and vulgar for
> the mere sake of being cude and vulgar is 'prolly not the best road. If
> he's smart he left Florida now, but the 'being smart' qualifier
> probably means not.
>
I was in error about the length of time he was sentenced; I refreshed myself
by rereading the articles I had on hand.
Just a little more background on Diana.
He published BOILED ANGEL during a three year period from 1987 to 1990. It
attracted the attention of the law when a detective discovered a copy in the
apartment of a murder suspect (this was during the high profile serial killings
of the Gainseville Murderer, who was stalking and killing college co-eds).
Given the extreme nature of the zine, the police investigated him as a possible
suspect, even testing his blood to see if it matched with blood found at crime
scenes. They eventually dropped him as a suspect for lack of evidence, but one
of the investigating detectives decided to check him out for possible obscenity
charges.
The cop ordered and purchased a couple of copies through the mail. Two
years later (I'm not sure why the long delay -- maybe other business took
priority, maybe it took the right assistant DA to become interested...) Diana
was arrested and charged on three counts of publishing obscene material. The
asst DA was asking for a sentence of three years. Diana's lawyers thought it
might get reduced to a fine; they were initially pleasantly surprised to find
that he was given three-year probation.
Then came the conditions (as noted by Duncan): a fine of $3000 (to be paid
in installments of $100 per month); 1,284 hours of community service at the
local Salvation Army (8 hours a week for 3 years -- plus, -he- has to pay $6 for
worker's insurance for each 8-hour session; he must work full-time (which means
he must log a 48-hour week, once you add in the community service);
psychological evalutaion within 30 days; and he was required to take a course in
journalistic ethics, at his own expense.
He also had to stay away from minors, which was difficult since he worked in
his dad's convenient store; he was therefore required to stay behind the counter
and speak only when spoken to by minors. And he was forbidden to draw -or-
write anything that might be deemed obscene, even for his own personal use; and
he is subject to unaanounced searches by his parole officer.
From Diana's own account of the trial, he tells how he was placed in maximum
security for the four days between his conviction and his sentencing (no bail
was allowed), and when he'd returned to court, the judge showed him a pile of
some two hundred pieces of mail, informing Diana that the citizens of Pinellas
County (where the arrest and trial took place) all wanted him to go to jail.
Somewhere around here I have some later articles detailing the appeals and
how they were denied, but I don't have them right at hand; and I'm not certain
of the current status of either Diana or his sentence. But the last I'd heard
was that even with heavy hitters like the ACLU and the Comic Book Legal Defense
Fund at his side, he was still striking out.
Diana's work was crude and ugly; I've seen samples of it, and it's not worth
a pittance, not even the death of the trees to make the paper it was printed
on. But... what the heck ever happened to Freedom of Speech!? Granted, this
stuff was no Gettysburg Address, but neither was it on the level of screaming
"Fire" in a crowded theatre. The obscenity charges had nothing to do with sex,
since most of the material were depictions of gross decapitations, and rather
repulsive usages of Christ and babies. Disturbing, irreverent, and irrelegious
trash... but isn't the Right to Free Speech supposed to protect one's privelege
to portray even that? Diana, by his own account again, claims to have had an
actual -artistic- interest in creating gross art; I have some serious doubts
about that, but that's his claim, and I haven't found where the prosecutor
proved otherwise.
The real point here is that if it happened to Diana -- who saw nothing wrong
with what he was doing, and who believed that in his own way he was creating Art
-- it could happen to any of us. If -- IF -- some authority somewhere found
furry material... discovered Furry Fandom... and decided that it was in some way
obscene (or just some -part- of it was obscene), some of us could go through
some of the same hoops, and the rest of us brought under scrutiny.
Circumstances and consequences could vary, especially since attitudes, customs,
and definitions of obscenity vary from county to county across the nation. But
don't think that it -couldn't- happen. It might very well -not- happen, but it
certainly -could-. It certainly did to Mike Diana.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
> > But Furry fandom is a lighting rod.
>
> Only the parts that stand up and yell at the clouds, really.
Ah, yet another "Shut up and let the Zoophiles run wild" advocate.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
doja.com> writes:
> Ahh, ok, that's makes a little more sense. I assume he's long since
> out from probation. Hopefully he's learned being cude and vulgar for
> the mere sake of being cude and vulgar is 'prolly not the best road.
> If he's smart he left Florida now, but the 'being smart'
> qualifier probably means not.
Nope, with the recent rejection of his appeal to the Supreme Court, his
probation resumes. He's got two more years.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
deja.com> writes:
> Al Goldman wrote:
> > When we get public decorum + tolerance, we'll have a fandom for
> > every interested adult.
>
> Careful, Al. You're starting to sound like you think the fandom should
> be a cool place for everyone who likes anthropomorphic animals.
> Haven't you learned yet that nothing will destroy the fandom quicker
> than everyone enjoying it? -:)
Hey, I agree, Fandom SHOULD be a cool place for everyone who likes
Anthropomorphic animals. Unfortunately, once you start making it a cool place
for people who like to fuck animals, or people who like to fuck children's
toys, it STOPS being a cool place for everyone who likes anthropomorphic
animals and starts being a cool place only for those other freaks.
> Tolerance---people treating each other with respect even though
> they disagree---is an important element of common courtesy we see far
> too little of, especially here on AFF. I try to give people as
> many chances as I can, because I recognize diversity is a Good Thing
> and everyone has things to share and contribute.
Tolerance would be nifty, if only it weren't treated as a one way street.
Tolerance isn't free though. It has to be paid for with consideration.
Freaks demanding tolerance must pay for it by being considerate to the
diversity in the fandom, like Christian furries, or people who like only clean
stuff, and even those people who hate Zoophilia et. al.
Haven't seen a lot of that consideration though. I know a few zoophiles who
ARE considerate to everyone else and leave that stuff behind when they are
around Furry Fans who like anthropomorphics. A really great way to make Furry
Fandom a Cool place for everyone who likes anthropomorphics would be if all
the zoophiles who liked anthropomorphics behaved like my friends do.
> I think most people understand that furry fans come from a wide variety
> of backgrounds. Folks who embrace public decorum and tolerance in
> this fandom have an easier time dealing with that fact than the folks
> who think they can [or have to] trade one for the other. In other
> words, common courtesy is about public decorum _and_ tolerance, not
> public decorum _or_ tolerance.
You're placing the burden of tolerance on those who have decorum, and asking
them to give it to those who don't have it. What are those who don't have
decorum bringing to the table? Ill behavior and "diversity" of dubious value.
It somehow does not seen equitable to me. If everyone behaved with decorum
and consideration, Tolerance would be a non-issue.
Conifur was an excellent example of this.
Rust
>
> deja.com> writes:
> > Al Goldman wrote:
> > > When we get public decorum + tolerance, we'll have a fandom for
> > > every interested adult.
> >
> > Careful, Al. You're starting to sound like you think the fandom should
> > be a cool place for everyone who likes anthropomorphic animals.
> > Haven't you learned yet that nothing will destroy the fandom quicker
> > than everyone enjoying it? -:)
>
> Hey, I agree, Fandom SHOULD be a cool place for everyone who likes
> Anthropomorphic animals. Unfortunately, once you start making it a cool place
> for people who like to fuck animals, or people who like to fuck children's
> toys, it STOPS being a cool place for everyone who likes anthropomorphic
> animals and starts being a cool place only for those other freaks.
Woah, good catch, Rich! The fire almost went out for a moment there!
-Rust
Rust
>
> writes:
> >
> > Only the parts that stand up and yell at the clouds, really.
>
> Ah, yet another "Shut up and let the Zoophiles run wild" advocate.
Nah, more of a "shut up, we're so F'ing sick of this BS" advocate. I'm
way beyond trying to defend something that needs no defense by now. I'd
just like for the "shrieking bonehead nerds" (an outside perspective
which has already been discussed to death, but I don't suppose the
negativity of it has quite sunk in yet for some) to pipe down and focus
on something constructive for a change.
Nobody's harming anybody here, save for throwing nasty accusations,
slander, and gleeful disrespect around in what amounts to a
mean-spirited cyber-food-fight. It's immature, it's pointless, it's a
waste of time and energy, and it's making a big ugly mess of the entire
fandom/subculture. It accomplishes no constructive thing. In the real
world, they call martial law for things like this.
And if anybody dislikes what the fandom/subculture is so much that they
feel a need to burn it and rebuild it to follow their own ideals,
they're quite welcome to leave it. Quite welcome indeed.
Weston Firerunner
Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
> But Furry fandom is a lighting rod. Every time we get ANY press, it's really
> just a matter of how bad it is. Some is more than others, but it's never
> good.
Wait. Wasn't there an NPR report that talked about Furries at a convention
available on the Net? I know that the link was posted on here a number of times
in the past, and when I listened to it, I found nothing negative at all in the
content. Wouldn't this count as a 'good' report, because it lacked a negative
reaction to Furry? Does 'good' mean only that which exhorts Furry Fandom as the
pinnacle of all other fandoms or does 'good' account for any story that doesn't
confuse/misinterpret/etc. the facts surrounding Furry?
I don't want to try to pick a fight..I just want to know if Mr. Chandler sees the
NPR story as a piece of good reporting on Furry :)
- Weston Firerunner
http://www.furnation.com/firerunner/
Rust
>
> Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
>
> > But Furry fandom is a lighting rod. Every time we get ANY press, it's really
> > just a matter of how bad it is. Some is more than others, but it's never
> > good.
>
> Wait. Wasn't there an NPR report that talked about Furries at a convention
> available on the Net? I know that the link was posted on here a number of times
> in the past, and when I listened to it, I found nothing negative at all in the
> content. Wouldn't this count as a 'good' report, because it lacked a negative
> reaction to Furry? Does 'good' mean only that which exhorts Furry Fandom as the
> pinnacle of all other fandoms or does 'good' account for any story that doesn't
> confuse/misinterpret/etc. the facts surrounding Furry?
I think I have that report stashed away on CD, if it's the one I think
it is. It doesn't provide a full cross-section of the fandom, but it's
responsible, ethical journalism. If anything, it paints us as loveable
comedic eccentrics.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
westonfi...@angelfire.REMOVE.com> writes:
> I don't want to try to pick a fight..I just want to know if Mr.
> Chandler sees the NPR story as a piece of good reporting on Furry :)
Oh yeah, I did hear that one once. That wasn't bad. That's the only non-bad
report I think I've ever heard aout of a dozen or so reports on Furry Fandom.
Being a single radio event rather than something in print, it tends to be a
bit ephemeral and I don't think about that one much. It's drowned out by
hundreds of column inches of villification and ridicule.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> Woah, good catch, Rich! The fire almost went out for a moment there!
Yeah, leave it to ol' Xydexx to come in with his sublely poisoned sweetness
and light. You have to watch him like a hawk before some innocent comes along
and swallows his hook. And of course, YOU can't leave me unreplied to. You
absolutely HAD to come in with otherwise content-free accusations of flame-
mongering, which is a form of flame-mongering itself. Just saw another one
not a minute before from you.
Hope you feel happy that you got me with this one. Sorry about skipping the
other one. Better luck next time.
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
> Woah, good catch, Rich! The fire almost went out for a moment there!
*shrug*
Like I said... tolerance is an important element of common courtesy we
see far too little of, especially here on AFF. Hopefully,
rec.arts.furry will change that.
The only thing intolerant folks have gotten are their names in people's
killfiles.
(I don't have a killfile. I have pity.)
--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
Anthrofurry Infocenter:
http://www.xydexx.com/anthrofurry
Duncan da Husky
>Wait. Wasn't there an NPR report that talked about Furries at a
>convention available on the Net?
For those playing along at home (who haven't long ago tuned out after
tiring of hearing the same crap over and over), that can be heard at
http://www.cornwuff.com/nprinterview.phtml
-Duncan da Husky
Rust
>
> writes:
>
> and light. You have to watch him like a hawk before some innocent comes along
> and swallows his hook. And of course, YOU can't leave me unreplied to. You
> absolutely HAD to come in with otherwise content-free accusations of flame-
> mongering, which is a form of flame-mongering itself. Just saw another one
> not a minute before from you.
Rich, you're the one who insisted on keeping the ball rolling with your
tired old BS. If you really want to continue with it, I strongly
suggest that you create alt.furry.flamewar and sit and sulk there along
with about 3 specific others. That way, nobody will ever disagree with
you, and you can throw all the nasty accusations etc back and forth
until all four of you are frothing at the mouth in an anti-everything
rage. Just take it away from here.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> Rich, you're the one who insisted on keeping the ball rolling with
> your tired old BS. If you really want to continue with it, I
> strongly suggest that you create alt.furry.flamewar and sit and sulk
> there along with about 3 specific others. That way, nobody will
> ever disagree with you, and you can throw all the nasty accusations
> etc back and forth until all four of you are frothing at the mouth in
> an anti-everything rage. Just take it away from here.
It already exists. It's called alt.fan.furry.politics, and up until just
recently, I couldn't get it. When I went there it was full of Xydexx and his
sycophants whining about me, and Karl posting thinly veiled threats disguised
as jokes about doing things like shoving a barbed-wire replica of the Eiffel
Tower up my nose.
That's Mr. Tolerant and "I've got better things to do than flamewars" for you.
Oh yeah, and he likes to invent allegories about stupid critters named Rich.
Rust
>
> writes:
> > Rich, you're the one who insisted on keeping the ball rolling with
> > your tired old BS. If you really want to continue with it, I
> > strongly suggest that you create alt.furry.flamewar and sit and sulk
> > there along with about 3 specific others. That way, nobody will
> > ever disagree with you, and you can throw all the nasty accusations
> > etc back and forth until all four of you are frothing at the mouth in
> > an anti-everything rage. Just take it away from here.
>
> It already exists. It's called alt.fan.furry.politics, and up until just
> recently, I couldn't get it. When I went there it was full of Xydexx and his
> sycophants whining about me, and Karl posting thinly veiled threats disguised
> as jokes about doing things like shoving a barbed-wire replica of the Eiffel
> Tower up my nose.
>
> That's Mr. Tolerant and "I've got better things to do than flamewars" for you.
>
> Oh yeah, and he likes to invent allegories about stupid critters named Rich.
As you like, I'll extend the list of members to include a few others.
That way, you can froth at eachother. Reactionists and radicals come in
all sizes, shapes, and sexual preferences.
In any case, as AFF is theoretically representative of the furry fandom,
and as you clearly state the things which you go on about are not
related to the fandom, by your own argument these flame wars are
seriously off topic here.
Al Goldman
(Richard Chandler - WA Resident) writes:
>
>Two Words. Michael Diana.
>
In the late 1980's and early 1990's I spend a lot of time reading Factsheet
Five and ordering all type of strange fanzines. I never bought a copy of Boiled
Angel, but I've seen his work.
Diana, when he was a minor, was producing stuff 100 times worse that the lowest
Furry Fandom has to offer. The sheer magnitude of obsessive, mindless sexual
violence and the frequent inclusion of children in his work makes is easy to
dismiss the relevance of Mike Diana's plight to that of furry fandom.
When we have furry artists who beg to be censored, I’ll worry about
censorship. Any underaged furry reaching Mike Diana's level of depravity would
have received hundreds of warnings from others inside the fandom, including
myself. I hope I'd be big enough not to not say " I told you so" as they
dragged a furry Mike Diana away, but the fact remains: the best way to avoid
trouble is not to get down on your hands and knees and beg for it.
His webpage is at http://www.testicle.com/mikediana.htm
If you don't have a strong stomach don't go there.
Chuck Melville
Al Goldman wrote:
>
>
> When we have furry artists who beg to be censored, I’ll worry about
> censorship. Any underaged furry reaching Mike Diana's level of depravity would
> have received hundreds of warnings from others inside the fandom, including
> myself. I hope I'd be big enough not to not say " I told you so" as they
> dragged a furry Mike Diana away, but the fact remains: the best way to avoid
> trouble is not to get down on your hands and knees and beg for it.
>
>
You're missing a couple of points. First, Diana believed that he was truly
creating art; I don't agree that it was, but he apparently felt that he was.
Secondly, it isn't the -quality- of his work that made us mention him, but the
fact that somebody in authority believed his work was so incredibly offensive that
his rights to Free Speech were legally removed. (Or illegally, if you will; they
were removed through legal process at any rate.) The same could happen to any
furry artist if some authority decided that it, too, was somehow grossly
offensive. It doesn't -have- to be of the same level or quality as Diana's; it
only has to be that some authority -believes- that it is.
Al Goldman
> Chuck Melville wrote
>>Al Goldman wrote:
>> When we have furry artists who beg to be censored, I'll worry about
>> censorship. Any underaged furry reaching Mike Diana's level of depravity
would
>> have received hundreds of warnings from others inside the fandom, including
>> myself. I hope I'd be big enough not to not say " I told you so" as they
>> dragged a furry Mike Diana away, but the fact remains: the best way to avoid
>> trouble is not to get down on your hands and knees and beg for it.
> You're missing a couple of points. First, Diana believed that he was
>truly creating art; I don't agree that it was, but he apparently felt that he
was.
Very true. I also can see how his work could be seen as having artistic merit.
But whether your a mature artist trying to break new ground by shocking an
audience (like Robert Williams) or just some kid into cool, sick stuff you
can't
mix sex, violence, and children and not expect trouble.
> Secondly, it isn't the -quality- of his work that made us mention him,
>but the fact that somebody in authority believed his work was so incredibly
offensive
>that his rights to Free Speech were legally removed. (Or illegally, if you
will;
>they were removed through legal process at any rate.)
Mike was partly hurt by living in a conservative part of Florida, which helped
him get to trial. But once in court the nature of his work would have been
seen as offensive by almost any middle class jury in the country, unless
he had top quality legal help with extensive knowledge of obscenity law.
Would furry be obscene? You really can't be sure in a lot of constitutional
cases until they reach a jury, but I don't see pictures of children being raped
and tortured in furry artwork.
>The same could happen to
>any furry artist if some authority decided that it, too, was somehow grossly
>offensive. It doesn't -have- to be of the same level or quality as Diana's;
>it only has to be that some authority -believes- that it is.
Like I said, we are nowhere as offensive as Mike's work and I don't see
the "If it happened to him it could happen to us" argument as being valid.
There's still that constitutional protection to get past, and D.A's. are
unlikely
to take such a case to court unless they are reasonably sure they will
succeed. D.A.'s start to look bad when they lose too many cases and
Freedom of Speech cases are known to become extremely expensive
as outside groups like the CBLDF or ACLU start assisting in the appeals
process.
Which bring us back to the current, controllable aspects of the fandom. We're
acting responsibly - age statements for adult material, discrete displays of
adult material at conventions, professional publishers who understand the laws,
and a complete ban on bee-stee-al-ity pictures (even though such pictures are
available by the thousands outside furry fandom)
There will always be that uncontrollable aspect of the fandom, We can only
hope they keep a low profile until they meet a more mature furry who explains
the ground rules to them. But if a furry creates truly obscene work they, not
the
fandom, will be held responsible for their actions.
And the fandom's PR? We're just as much at risk of looking bad from an actual
furry obscenity case as from a sensationalist hack job, and nether would shut
down the overwelming number legal activities that make up the fandom.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> Diana, when he was a minor, was producing stuff 100 times worse that
> the lowest Furry Fandom has to offer. The sheer magnitude of
> obsessive, mindless sexual violence and the frequent inclusion of
> children in his work makes is easy to dismiss the relevance of
> Mike Diana's plight to that of furry fandom.
You were the one taking the free speech absolutist, "It'll never happen here"
attitude. How bad is bad enough to merit the loss of free speech? How bad is
bad enough that such a loss is Okay? Who makes that judgement? We brought up
Diana because it proves that it CAN happen when you said it couldn't.
Chuck Melville
Al Goldman wrote:
> > Chuck Melville wrote
>
> > Secondly, it isn't the -quality- of his work that made us mention him,
> >but the fact that somebody in authority believed his work was so incredibly
> offensive
> >that his rights to Free Speech were legally removed. (Or illegally, if you
> will;
> >they were removed through legal process at any rate.)
>
> Mike was partly hurt by living in a conservative part of Florida, which helped
> him get to trial. But once in court the nature of his work would have been
> seen as offensive by almost any middle class jury in the country, unless
> he had top quality legal help with extensive knowledge of obscenity law.
He did, especially throughout his appeals. Didn't help.
>
> Would furry be obscene? You really can't be sure in a lot of constitutional
> cases until they reach a jury, but I don't see pictures of children being raped
>
> and tortured in furry artwork.
Obscenity wasn't a Constitutional issue, since obscenity is decided on a
regional basis. If a community decided that furry, or elements in furry, were
obscene, then that's the legal definition. It can be contested and it can be put
to the test, but if you can't convince the court or the jury, you're stuck. The
only Consititutional issue is over whether his Rights to Free Speech were
infringed by the sentence imposed on him.
>
>
> >The same could happen to
> >any furry artist if some authority decided that it, too, was somehow grossly
> >offensive. It doesn't -have- to be of the same level or quality as Diana's;
> >it only has to be that some authority -believes- that it is.
>
> Like I said, we are nowhere as offensive as Mike's work and I don't see
> the "If it happened to him it could happen to us" argument as being valid.
> There's still that constitutional protection to get past, and D.A's. are
> unlikely
> to take such a case to court unless they are reasonably sure they will
> succeed. D.A.'s start to look bad when they lose too many cases and
> Freedom of Speech cases are known to become extremely expensive
> as outside groups like the CBLDF or ACLU start assisting in the appeals
> process.
Okay, you're still missing the point. It isn't whether or not -we- consider
furry to be offensive; it's whether or not some legal authority decides that it
is. There is no constitutional protection where obscenity is concerned (not so
far as I know), except in the matter of Free Speech. Does writing or drawing
furry material constitute Free Speech? The Supreme Court themselves haven't been
able to decide, and shunted the responsibility to a local level. (Justice Hugo
Black's famous quote in this regard was "I don't know how to define what's
obscene, but I know it if I see it.") If drawing and writing furry material is
Free Speech, then doesn't Diana's work, repulsive as it is, also constitute Free
Speech? The DA prosecuted his case because he was sure he could win it, and he
did, and no appeal, not even with the help of either the CBDLF or ACLU, won
through. He lost on all counts.
>
> Which bring us back to the current, controllable aspects of the fandom. We're
> acting responsibly - age statements for adult material, discrete displays of
> adult material at conventions, professional publishers who understand the laws,
> and a complete ban on bee-stee-al-ity pictures (even though such pictures are
> available by the thousands outside furry fandom)
>
> There will always be that uncontrollable aspect of the fandom, We can only
> hope they keep a low profile until they meet a more mature furry who explains
> the ground rules to them. But if a furry creates truly obscene work they, not
> the
> fandom, will be held responsible for their actions.
Still missing the point: it doesn't matter if -actual- obscene material is
created by furries or not, but whether or not an authority -considers- it to be
obscene.
>
>
> And the fandom's PR? We're just as much at risk of looking bad from an actual
> furry obscenity case as from a sensationalist hack job, and nether would shut
> down the overwelming number legal activities that make up the fandom.
>
If such a case ever occured, the uniqueness and novelty of it would bring a
huge media spotlight on the fandom like you wouldn't believe... provided something
really bizarre, like a tied election, doesn't happen at the same time to divert
attention. And then we could -all- pay for it.
Chuck Melville
Al Goldman wrote:
> In article <001111145...@mauser.at.kendra.com>, mau...@kendra.com
> (Richard Chandler - WA Resident) writes:
>
>
> >How bad is bad enough to merit the loss of free speech? How bad
> >is bad enough that such a loss is Okay? Who makes that judgement?
> >We brought up Diana because it proves that it CAN happen when you said it
> couldn't.
>
> Big problem with obscenity cases is you often don't know if something
> is obscene until after the trial. Again, see my comments to Chuck,.
Actually, we should. There -are- laws on the books in every city, town and
county. Don't know them? The law does not accept ignorance of the law as an
excuse. Common sense alone should give most folks some notion of what to expect,
at the very least. And at any rate, you'll certainly know when you're arrested
for it, because they tell you then, and again later at your arraignment. At
best, the court then -determines- whether or not the definition of obscenity is
valid or not, and whether or not there's a legal precedent for it.
Chuck Melville
Chuck Melville wrote:
>
> Okay, you're still missing the point. It isn't whether or not -we- consider
> furry to be offensive; it's whether or not some legal authority decides that it
> is. There is no constitutional protection where obscenity is concerned (not so
> far as I know), except in the matter of Free Speech. Does writing or drawing
> furry material constitute Free Speech? The Supreme Court themselves haven't been
> able to decide, and shunted the responsibility to a local level. (Justice Hugo
> Black's famous quote in this regard was "I don't know how to define what's
> obscene, but I know it if I see it.") If drawing and writing furry material is
> Free Speech, then doesn't Diana's work, repulsive as it is, also constitute Free
> Speech? The DA prosecuted his case because he was sure he could win it, and he
> did, and no appeal, not even with the help of either the CBDLF or ACLU, won
> through. He lost on all counts.
>
Sorry... brain fart there. The sentences about the Supreme Court being unable to
decide were in reference to -obscenity-, not to -furry-. They were intended to be
inserted -before- the sentences about Free Speech, not smack in the middle of them.
Al Goldman
(Richard Chandler - WA Resident) writes:
>In article <20001111073258...@nso-cf.aol.com>,
>allan...@aol.comNARF (Al Goldman) writes:
>> Diana, when he was a minor, was producing stuff 100 times worse that
>> the lowest Furry Fandom has to offer. The sheer magnitude of
>> obsessive, mindless sexual violence and the frequent inclusion of
>> children in his work makes is easy to dismiss the relevance of
>> Mike Diana's plight to that of furry fandom.
>You were the one taking the free speech absolutist, "It'll never happen here"
>attitude.
I'm not a free speech absolutist, as my frequent comments
against bee-stee-al-ity prove. See my response to Chuck
for more detailed info on why I don't think it will happen here.
>How bad is bad enough to merit the loss of free speech? How bad
>is bad enough that such a loss is Okay? Who makes that judgement?
>We brought up Diana because it proves that it CAN happen when you said it
couldn't.
Big problem with obscenity cases is you often don't know if something
is obscene until after the trial. Again, see my comments to Chuck,.
Al Goldman
SilverJain
Mike Diana has since moved to New York City (since his probation is over) and
he's doing art again. She also mentioned something about him talking about
getting a job as a go-go boy (ie: cage dancer) at the New York gay/drag club
she frequents. Of course, he could have been joking about that.
As for any furry comics being considered obscene and being prosecuted- well,
that's why I donate to The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. Every year at San
Diego Comic Con, they get some of my money.
And wasn't Omaha the Cat Dancer deemed "not obscene" in a case a long time ago?
I seem to remember that, but can't find the old Comics Journal with the details
of the case now....
--Elin
Selling my collections! Always different stuff! Check out the deals here:
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/silverjain/
Radio Comix Online:
http://www.radiocomix.com