FAASA...
Ben Bruin
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/8071
--
Two rules:
1)never stand behind a cow......
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Farlo
> Mark me up as a FAASA supporter.
>
>http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/8071
>
Gee, a BLACK and RED page targeted at Zoophiles and the archenemies of the
Zoos, the beastialists. It's part of the "Burned Fur" web ring.
Surprise, surprise, surprise. =P
(I'm not feeling alot of "Love" coming from these guys, you know?)
Check it out:
"FAASA does not condone or encourage harassment and/or violence towards the
individuals in question". Uh huh.
... yet ...
"Furries Against Animal Sexual Abuse is a grassroots organization dedicated
to the removal of bestialists and zoophiles from Furry Fandom."
So, "Harassment" is out, but "Discrimination and Persecution" are A-okay
for all budding hatemo- er, FAASA members.
Sign up now! Do it today! Especially before we come for YOU!![1]
--
Farlo
Urban fey dragon
"Yes, my e-mail address is valid. It just doesn't look valid."
[1] Sooner or later they WILL.
PS
Hey, I have a great idea - i'll join FAASA, and hunt witc- er, "those
damned Zoophiles", too. Yeah, it'll be fun. I sense a disturbance in the
force ... must be a Zoophile. Out, damned Zoos! I hunt for you in the
safety of my own backyard!! Fear my "Righteous Wrath(tm)" and my "Bloody
Sword of Moral Judgements". Truth is my Shield, yea, verily as I slam it
into the ground many times AWAY from me ... you can run but you cannot
hide. Saint McCarthy is my guiding light, Salem my heritage, and none
shall stay my bloody lunacy! Woohoo!
"Onward bloody soldiers, marching off to war,
bloody bloody warriors, come to judgements' call,
might is our right, and our savior burning bright,
just like the torches we hold for things to set alight ..."
(Okay, i'm no poet, but hey - gotta have some fun)
Today's "Suspected Zoophile" is ...*drumroll* ... ": <insert victim here>
Jim Lee Jr.
Farlo wrote in message <8E2B61F91far...@news.fysh.org>...
>
>Gee, a BLACK and RED page targeted at Zoophiles and the archenemies of the
>Zoos, the beastialists. It's part of the "Burned Fur" web ring.
>Surprise, surprise, surprise. =P
So what's your point, Farlo? Got a problem with it?
>(I'm not feeling alot of "Love" coming from these guys, you know?)
Again, what's your point?
>Check it out:
>"FAASA does not condone or encourage harassment and/or violence towards the
>individuals in question". Uh huh.
>
>... yet ...
I don't think so, Farlo..
>"Furries Against Animal Sexual Abuse is a grassroots organization dedicated
>to the removal of bestialists and zoophiles from Furry Fandom."
>
>So, "Harassment" is out, but "Discrimination and Persecution" are A-okay
>for all budding hatemo- er, FAASA members.
>
>Sign up now! Do it today! Especially before we come for YOU!![1]
>
>--
>Farlo
>Urban fey dragon
>
>"Yes, my e-mail address is valid. It just doesn't look valid."
>
>[1] Sooner or later they WILL.
>
>PS
>Hey, I have a great idea - i'll join FAASA, and hunt witc- er, "those
>damned Zoophiles", too. Yeah, it'll be fun. I sense a disturbance in the
>force ... must be a Zoophile. Out, damned Zoos! I hunt for you in the
>safety of my own backyard!! Fear my "Righteous Wrath(tm)" and my "Bloody
>Sword of Moral Judgements". Truth is my Shield, yea, verily as I slam it
>into the ground many times AWAY from me ... you can run but you cannot
>hide. Saint McCarthy is my guiding light, Salem my heritage, and none
>shall stay my bloody lunacy! Woohoo!
>
>"Onward bloody soldiers, marching off to war,
>bloody bloody warriors, come to judgements' call,
>might is our right, and our savior burning bright,
>just like the torches we hold for things to set alight ..."
>(Okay, i'm no poet, but hey - gotta have some fun)
No, Farlo, it's called 'upholding decency and the laws of the land;'
bestiality is illegal in many states and other countries, whether you like
it or not. Keep the perversions behind closed doors; if you admit your
pervs, be prepared to take the heat.
Jim Lee Jr.
Ben Bruin wrote in message <7prnjn$573$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Two rules:
>1)never stand behind a cow......
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Mark me as a supporter too.
Jim
Farlo
>So what's your point, Farlo? Got a problem with it?
Why, yes. Maybe you noticed?
>>(I'm not feeling alot of "Love" coming from these guys, you know?)
>
>Again, what's your point?
Oh, maybe that lack of love for your fellow man is against the fellowship
of mankind and contrary to the principles that the son of God tried to
instill in every one of us by his example.
Don't mind me, i'm just a nobody.
=)
>>Check it out:
>>"FAASA does not condone or encourage harassment and/or violence towards
>>the individuals in question". Uh huh.
>>
>>... yet ...
>
>I don't think so, Farlo..
You don't think that is what the page said?
I quoted it direct.
Will somebody please hand Jim Lee Jr the page link,
and while they're at it, lend him a clue??
>No, Farlo, it's called 'upholding decency and the laws of the land;'
Jim Lee, the only law you respect is the law of the Jungle. Welcome to
the jungle, we got fun and games, you can have anything you want ...
>bestiality is illegal in many states and other countries, whether you
>like it or not.
Bestiality is legal in many states and other countries, whether *you*
like it or not. You can marry a goat in ... ah, forget it. =D
>Keep the perversions behind closed doors; if you admit your
>pervs, be prepared to take the heat.
I am not a perv, but I play one on Tv.
Does anyone remember this oh-so-familiar flamewar?
Will the AFF community gather together and stop this scourge, or does
everyone really, really want to has it through *one ... more ... time*???
Farlo
>Ben Bruin wrote in message <7prnjn$573$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> Mark me up as a FAASA supporter.
>>Mark me as a supporter too.
>
> Jim
Jimmy, your mark is a ... hey, here's a question: what are the devout tools
of Satan wearing these days? Not to imply that Jim Lee Jr is a tool of
Satan, I am just curious.
Kai Robinson
>Does anyone remember this oh-so-familiar flamewar?
>Will the AFF community gather together and stop this scourge, or does
>everyone really, really want to has it through *one ... more ... time*???
I sure as hell don't. The fandom has so much better to offer.
Jim Lee Jr.
Farlo wrote in message <8E2B73641far...@news.fysh.org>...
>>>(I'm not feeling alot of "Love" coming from these guys, you know?)
Love does not include toleration of immoral behavior; it tries to correct it
to moral behavior.
The page is not meant to be touchy feely, it is meant to bring bestiality
into open, to show it up to be the perversion it is.
>Oh, maybe that lack of love for your fellow man is against the fellowship
>of mankind and contrary to the principles that the son of God tried to
>instill in every one of us by his example.
Sorry, it is called 'loving the person and hating the sin.'
>Don't mind me, i'm just a nobody.
That's your problem, not mine.
>>>Check it out:
>>>"FAASA does not condone or encourage harassment and/or violence towards
>>>the individuals in question". Uh huh.
>>>
>>>... yet ...
>You don't think that is what the page said?
>I quoted it direct.
Yes, I read the page, violence is condemned.
>Will somebody please hand Jim Lee Jr the page link,
>and while they're at it, lend him a clue??
I already have a clue, and I have the page's link, thank you very much.
>Jim Lee, the only law you respect is the law of the Jungle. Welcome to
>the jungle, we got fun and games, you can have anything you want ...
I respect God's laws, and the laws of nature; it is unnatural for humans to
yiff animals; animals do not consent and cannot consent to sex with humans.
Read Leviticus 18, which covers bestiality, fornication, and incest; they
are all perversions, whether anyone likes it or not.
Just because we are in the age of grace does not nullify God's moral laws,
there will be an accounting on the last day, when everyone gives an account
to God. cf Jude 5-7 and Revelation 17, 18 and 20.
God will judge sin and perversion, whether one likes or not.
>Bestiality is legal in many states and other countries, whether *you*
>like it or not. You can marry a goat in ... ah, forget it. =D
Does that mean YOU like it, Farlo? Just because bestiality is legal does not
mean it is moral and permissible.
>Does anyone remember this oh-so-familiar flamewar?
>Will the AFF community gather together and stop this scourge, or does
>everyone really, really want to has it through *one ... more ... time*???
What's the matter, too hot for you? If the pervs were not so out and proud
about the fetishes and broadcast them for all to hear, there would not be
flamewars. Mortimer Snerd can figure that one out.
Jim Lee Jr.
ilr
Ben Bruin <lonely...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7prnjn$573$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Mark me up as a FAASA supporter.
>
>
Any other Mech fan or BattleTech'er would agree with me, it sounds
too much like our beloved FASA corporation. Find some other
title you unoriginal bastards.
Here, Try these instead:
WHZUP === We Hate Zoo's and Ugly Pervs
DBK === Don't Be Knotty
GHDH === God Hates Doggy Humpers
NIMFYFOC === Not In My Fandom You Fuckmonkeys On Crack!
FFF === the Flu Flux Fan
INYISS === I'm Normal, Your Illegal in Several States
IAYFMLAU === It's All Your Fault Mundanes Laugh At Us.
DAG === Destroy Artifacts of Greece!
TMMPTMTGA === They Make My Pants Tight, Make Them Go Away!
FAP === Furry Art Police
NAMBYPAMBLA === National AntiZoo Members Brown-nosing Ye Political American
Majority By Loathing Animal-sex
BFII === Burned Furs II
:]
--- i l r
The Luprha'nite
> Mark me up as a FAASA supporter.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/8071
>
> --
> Two rules:
> 1)never stand behind a cow......
Mark yourself up for a public hazing,
Mark yourself up for a public torment,
Mark yourself up for a public bulls-eye,
Mark yourself up for a public asshole,
Mark yourself up for a public zealot,
Need I go on?
You all REALLY need to find a better hobby in furry, oh.. thats right..
it is a hobby. I think its a little to fucked up for billy and sally to play
in anymore.
It's the 90's, god is dead, no one cares, and if there is a hell, its furry and
I am gonna see you there!!
Nyahh!
--
The Luphra'nite
We should police ourselves, as we are our own best censors.
Exeperience and talent are NO excuse for blatent and utter
stupidity.
The Luprha'nite
> No, Farlo, it's called 'upholding decency and the laws of the land;'
> bestiality is illegal in many states and other countries, whether you like
> it or not. Keep the perversions behind closed doors; if you admit your
> pervs, be prepared to take the heat.
Stupidity, Religion, and someone in depends laws more like it.
I also remember a part in the bible where god said to the extent of not to hurt
animals, not to feed upon them, then when the flood took place he said eat em.
? Okay.. we got a problem here.
Also, ALOT and I mean ALOT of our LAWS and the like are based in religion
remember that, and religion and government is fucked up. I don't care about
your oppinions on this, unless your a pinhead you can see that one. Why take
this crap at vace value? Want to be another conforming twit in mainstream, be a
bit of cattle to eat die and sleep by the sytem.
Perversions are only viewed by someon who has morality or was taught
differntly. I SERIOUSLY can't wait till someday humans are visted by another
culture, alien or what not, I will die laughign my ass of when its a furry type
race or something that enslaves mankind for sexual prisononers, then what you
going to do? Call it humanlity?
*SNICKER RANT RAVE*
'kay.. have fun.
--
The Luphra'nite
We should police ourselves, as we are our own best censors.
Exeperience and talent are NO excuse for blatent and utter
stupidity.
It's the 90's, god is dead, no one cares, and if there is a hell, its furry and
The Luprha'nite
> Farlo wrote in message <8E2B73641far...@news.fysh.org>...
>
> >>>(I'm not feeling alot of "Love" coming from these guys, you know?)
>
> Love does not include toleration of immoral behavior; it tries to correct it
> to moral behavior.
Read Blumrich's page, yah.. thats REALLY loving thy neighbor, with a 9mm
upside the cranium.
> The page is not meant to be touchy feely, it is meant to bring bestiality
> into open, to show it up to be the perversion it is.
Okay.. how about we bring up a problem of pedophila in the fandom?
Hmm??
How many twits in the fandom are pedos!! Speak up!! (crickets chriping)
Get it.. people are quite about pedo cause everyone thinks thats screwed up,
those who talk about and disccuss b3asty/z00 things KNOW there
is a major difference, rather then someone who has their nose in a law
book, and wipping their ass their with the word of gospel.
> >Oh, maybe that lack of love for your fellow man is against the fellowship
> >of mankind and contrary to the principles that the son of God tried to
> >instill in every one of us by his example.
>
> Sorry, it is called 'loving the person and hating the sin.'
I think it just someone's call to get a convoy of hazing and witch burning
again.
Flames never stop do they?
> >Don't mind me, i'm just a nobody.
>
> That's your problem, not mine.
Why mention it?
> >>>Check it out:
> >>>"FAASA does not condone or encourage harassment and/or violence towards
> >>>the individuals in question". Uh huh.
> >>>
> >>>... yet ...
>
> >You don't think that is what the page said?
> >I quoted it direct.
>
> Yes, I read the page, violence is condemned.
*cough cough bullshit cough cough*
Yah.. like clinton didn't inhale, and lewinsky didn't swallow, yah..
I can shot lighting bolts out my ass as well ;)
> >Will somebody please hand Jim Lee Jr the page link,
> >and while they're at it, lend him a clue??
>
> I already have a clue, and I have the page's link, thank you very much.
>
> >Jim Lee, the only law you respect is the law of the Jungle. Welcome to
> >the jungle, we got fun and games, you can have anything you want ...
>
> I respect God's laws, and the laws of nature; it is unnatural for humans to
> yiff animals; animals do not consent and cannot consent to sex with humans.
> Read Leviticus 18, which covers bestiality, fornication, and incest; they
> are all perversions, whether anyone likes it or not.
God's laws are not my laws, laws are not my laws. I live quite happy and
secure ignoring ALOT of the laws out there and don't have a problem in life.
We are all animals, we just got an oppsible thumb, and a brain that can
think of stupid things to put in writing, that is that is is different about us.
The bible is also made up from a bunch of wine drinking men who followed
around another like a lost puppy. It was also brought up from a comic I
have read that 'jesus' might have been a vampire ;) Eternal life, hoards
of followers and coming back from the dead. Turning water into wine..
> Just because we are in the age of grace does not nullify God's moral laws,
> there will be an accounting on the last day, when everyone gives an account
> to God. cf Jude 5-7 and Revelation 17, 18 and 20.
> God will judge sin and perversion, whether one likes or not.
God, Satan, the gods in general are all hooey in my book, actualy, its more
like a phamphelt that say if your reading this book, go bang your head against
a tree for beliving in an omnipotent being, moron.
I think what it is is that there is 'some' higher being, be it alients, spirts,
engery
or some sentient belly button lint, but I DOUBT that some higher power made
man right a little book that is in ever nightstand of ever hotel in america.
Yah.
> >Bestiality is legal in many states and other countries, whether *you*
> >like it or not. You can marry a goat in ... ah, forget it. =D
>
> Does that mean YOU like it, Farlo? Just because bestiality is legal does not
> mean it is moral and permissible.
Nor does giving someone a brain duster, shrug.
Why is that EVERYTIME this damn issue is brought up, that GOD
and his almight piece of asswiping come into play?? I mean,
what if we all belived in a turd or something, would be differnt?
If GOD made mankind in his own image, then GOD must be one
screwed up being, am I wrong?
The Luprha'nite
>
> Jimmy, your mark is a ... hey, here's a question: what are the devout tools
> of Satan wearing these days? Not to imply that Jim Lee Jr is a tool of
> Satan, I am just curious.
>
> --
> Farlo
> Urban fey dragon
>
> "Yes, my e-mail address is valid. It just doesn't look valid."
Recently there was a school who banned the Star of David from its halls
because some gangs were using it for 'statanic' and 'gang' related
rituals. :) Heh.. what a crock.
Personally, I think if GAWD and SATAN were actually real, and around today, they
would be down in cuba, doing a line smoking some ganja and laughign their asses
off at the furries and their stupidy, as well as clinton and the whole kosovo
thing.
Probably taking dibs on who is going to start the next fiasco ;)
Okay.. I am REALLY fucked up today, think I am goign to go drink myself sane or
something.
The Luprha'nite
> Any other Mech fan or BattleTech'er would agree with me, it sounds
> too much like our beloved FASA corporation. Find some other
> title you unoriginal bastards.
Good one!! I don't think they would be appreciative.
I would like to see a direwolf or a maurauder shove a gun barrel up their
noses for it, make great headlines ;) Much like an add for the pitsburg
comicon a LONG time again, when M;TG was still fresh. There was a mage, somethign and a
dragon, all getting to cast a spell, and there was a warhawk/maurauder (medium mech) turned,
looking down at them as it was starting to fire PPCs with teh caption, "TAP THIS!" I went into
convulsions laughing!! ;)
> Here, Try these instead:
>
> WHZUP === We Hate Zoo's and Ugly Pervs
> DBK === Don't Be Knotty
Oo.. good one ;)
> GHDH === God Hates Doggy Humpers
Nah.. Phelps might want to file a lawsuite for copyright similarities.
> NIMFYFOC === Not In My Fandom You Fuckmonkeys On Crack!
Ooo.. good canidate :)
> FFF === the Flu Flux Fan
> INYISS === I'm Normal, Your Illegal in Several States
Ooooss.. I think that is a GOOD canidate ;)
> IAYFMLAU === It's All Your Fault Mundanes Laugh At Us.
hehe..
> DAG === Destroy Artifacts of Greece!
0.o BLinks?
> TMMPTMTGA === They Make My Pants Tight, Make Them Go Away!
Sounds like a code from Turok the Dinosaur Hutter ;) FRTHSTHTRLLYSCK For those that really
suck ;)
> FAP === Furry Art Police
> NAMBYPAMBLA === National AntiZoo Members Brown-nosing Ye Political American
> Majority By Loathing Animal-sex
> BFII === Burned Furs II
Don't give 'em any more ideas. ;)
> :]
> --- i l r
I like you.. your phunny and kewl!! Unlike some of those twisted mental cases out there, they
scare me! o.-
Elf Sternberg
"ilr" <i...@rof.net> writes:
>Here, Try these instead:
>INYISS === I'm Normal, Your Illegal in Several States
This one, of course, should be said with a lisp, and written
the way the Founding Fathers would have it:
"I'm Normal, You're Illegal in Feveral Ftatef."
INYIFF.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystic cynical idealist
MST3K - Help save the saving grace of television.
A.A 1493 http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
Random
<spam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Zoophiles and the archenemies of the Zoos, the beastialists.
Uh.. Zoophiles are beastialists...
--Random
Farlo
>Farlo wrote in message <8E2B73641far...@news.fysh.org>...
>>Does anyone remember this oh-so-familiar flamewar?
>>Will the AFF community gather together and stop this scourge, or does
>>everyone really, really want to has it through *one ... more ... time*???
>
>I sure as hell don't. The fandom has so much better to offer.
Yeah, the JimLee personage is pure troll - I'll killfile him soon, and just
blow off this whole thread. Nobody needs to see this stuff again.
Farlo
>Farlo wrote in message <8E2B73641far...@news.fysh.org>...
>
>>>>(I'm not feeling alot of "Love" coming from these guys, you know?)
>
>Love does not include toleration of immoral behavior; it tries to
>correct it to moral behavior.
>
>The page is not meant to be touchy feely, it is meant to bring
>bestiality into open, to show it up to be the perversion it is.
To quote Willy Wonka "I know a worse one".
>>Don't mind me, i'm just a nobody.
>
>That's your problem, not mine.
For the benefit of everyone, Jim Lee Jr is entering my killfile.
Life is too short for this particular merry-go-round ...
ilr
> >Here, Try these instead:
>
> >INYISS === I'm Normal, Your Illegal in Several States
>
> This one, of course, should be said with a lisp, and written
> the way the Founding Fathers would have it:
>
> "I'm Normal, You're Illegal in Feveral Ftatef."
> INYIFF.
>
Dr. Cat
: ilr wrote:
: > INYISS === I'm Normal, Your Illegal in Several States
: Ooooss.. I think that is a GOOD canidate ;)
I'm afraid it's too easy to confuse with other behaviors that are illegal
in some states and legal in others, though. Like two homosexual having
sex, or adultery, or heterosexuals having anal sex or even oral sex in
some places. (One man spent two years in jail in the 1980s for having
oral sex with his own wife!)
So that one's not specific enough.
: > DAG === Destroy Artifacts of Greece!
: 0.o BLinks?
That one's obviously a bit more obscure. But I think he's referring to
the fact that they often depicted that type of sex in art, like on some of
the red-figure pots and such.
Of course this also might get the group confused with anti-gay groups, as
those naughty greeks would do art depicting that also.
I'm going to suggest TIOAAYCHICWTOIF, which stands for:
This Is Our Acronym And You Can't Have It 'Cause We Thought Of It First.
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: That acronym does have the disadvantage of not speaking out
against the sex act they're trying to speak out against. But by it's
very nature, it's an acronym that can only be claimed once, and then will
be held in an unshakable grasp by whichever group nabs it first... So I
really think this group should consider grabbing it while they still have
the chance!)
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>The page is not meant to be touchy feely, it is meant to bring bestiality
>into open, to show it up to be the perversion it is.
Hold on I thourt you wished to have bestiality hidden and behind
closed doors.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Weyfour WWWWolf (Urpo Lankinen)
> I respect God's laws, and the laws of nature; it is unnatural for humans to
> yiff animals; animals do not consent and cannot consent to sex with humans.
> Read Leviticus 18, which covers bestiality, fornication, and incest; they
> are all perversions, whether anyone likes it or not.
(Note: heavy weirdness follows. The following is my opinion only; It's
not intended as a flame bait against the followers of Bible - heck,
I'm Lutheran myself!)
I'm not saying whether or not zoophilia is immoral and against the
laws of the nature (heck, I'm not a zoophile myself, and I don't even
have the necessary experience on the matter to make the judgement),
but I do have something to say about the biblical laws...
* I have a bank account. (Exodus 22:24)
* I rather like musta makkara (a form of sausage they sell in Tampere,
one of the ingredients is blood - Leviticus 17:10-12)
* I don't demand death penalty for mr. Niilo Paasivirta ("God is an
ectoplasm and a daredevil!" - Leviticus 24:16)
* I don't think the black refugees we have in our country should be
enslaved (Leviticus 25:45-46)
Therefore, according to the bible, I should be stoned to
death. (Leviticus 26:14-16) However, our church is much more
forgiving, for as the Apostle Paul says, Christians are not bound
explictly by Moses' law. That's how I interpreted the Bible. It
wouldn't even be possible to follow the biblical laws to the letter in
here; modern economy depends on the banks, and bible would make
banking a lot more complicated.
Me, I think Moses' law is... kind of... obsolete. Not for all of it,
of course, but some parts of it might well belong into dumblaws.com,
if they would take such material without fears of being flamed to
cinder.
(This was a free sample - application of the essence of "reductio ad
absurdum". =)
--
Weyfour WWWWolf (a.k.a. Urpo Lankinen), just another lupine technomancer
<www...@iki.fi> <URL:http://www.iki.fi/wwwwolf/> ICQ:4291042 -==(RGRNCA)==-
S.J.Laitila
Mark me up as an anti-FAASA individual.
And you can also mark me up as a person who's actually
TALKED to zoos.
S.J.Laitila
>bestiality is illegal in many states and other countries, whether you like
>it or not. Keep the perversions behind closed doors; if you admit your
>pervs, be prepared to take the heat.
Nice witch hunt.
Ben Bruin
sexually molest animals. They are seriously emotionally warped people
who are in desperate need of serious psychological help and a swift
kick in the pants-- not necessarily in that order.
--
Two rules:
1)never stand behind a cow......
Ben Bruin
The Luprha'nite
> And what they SAY does not change what they DO. and what they DO is
> sexually molest animals. They are seriously emotionally warped people
> who are in desperate need of serious psychological help and a swift
> kick in the pants-- not necessarily in that order.
>
> --
> Two rules:
> 1)never stand behind a cow......
Last I heard you wanted to get rid of spooge and porn in furry, well, I think
that is twisted and emotionally warped. I think you need a swift kick in the
pants, and some help from a shrink, in either order, or with a side of fries.
If your not a shrink, then shut up. 'kay?
I don't think ANYONE here has a Ph.D. in Psycology, if you think you do
prove it, otherewise it goes for any twit around this newsgroup. If your
a certified shrink YAH, if not, go get a degree or shut ya trap. 'kay?
I am TIRED of folks calling Pyscological calls here, WTF, over?
PLEASE.. most of the people here need a good swift clue hammer,
not shrink help.
live and let die, and get clues, not shrinks. They already get paid enough.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
s...@saunalahti.fi.spamcomnot> writes:
> >And what they SAY does not change what they DO. and what they DO
> >is sexually molest animals. They are seriously emotionally warped
> >people who are in desperate need of serious psychological help and
> >a swift kick in the pants-- not necessarily in that order.
>
> lurking in zoo #channels.
And that Gacey fellow, he sure painted nice clowns.
--
The greatest tragedy is that the same species that achieved space flight,
a cure for polio, and the transistor, is also featured nightly on COPS.
-- Richard Chandler
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
Susan Parkin
>Here, Try these instead:
>GHDH === God Hates Doggy Humpers
*snerk!*
>NIMFYFOC === Not In My Fandom You Fuckmonkeys On Crack!
*LOL!*
>IAYFMLAU === It's All Your Fault Mundanes Laugh At Us.
BWAHAHAHA! Except that this could be used inthe SCA as
well...
>DAG === Destroy Artifacts of Greece!
Open to too much interpretation.
>TMMPTMTGA === They Make My Pants Tight, Make Them Go Away!
Again, too open.
>NAMBYPAMBLA === National AntiZoo Members Brown-nosing Ye Political American
> Majority By Loathing Animal-sex
I wouldn't call it brown-nosing. Brown-nosing implies that
there is some sort of climb on the social ladder to be had. 'Being"
or "Belonging to" would fit better.
*tongue firmly in cheek, and none-too-thrilled to have
zoophiles around either.*
Ok, personal opinion time. It bothers me that this type of
behaviour has latched onto the fandom. It makes you second guess
every piece of artwork or writing you produce that has ANY sort of
adult theme to it, not just...yanno.
Actually, when I think about anthro art and then about
beastiality, I just don't see the legitimate connection. The anthros
are so human... Are we just the closest they can get to actual *ehem*
KittyPorn? Don't get me wrong, I don't want anyone starting up
KittyPorn Magazine or PuppyLove Publications, but can't they find
somewhere else to go? Like to seek help? I'm serious here, to be
attracted sexually to animals is just wrong. I can say this because I
know someone who used to engage inthis type of behaviour in his youth
and got help, and STOPPED. YES! You CAN stop!
Sue
"NEVER stick your finger inthat part of the doggy!"
The Egoworks
> Ok, personal opinion time. It bothers me that this type of
>behaviour has latched onto the fandom. It makes you second guess
>every piece of artwork or writing you produce that has ANY sort of
>adult theme to it, not just...yanno.
I just had to come out just because of this. I also find it extremely bothersome
that furry does have *that* reputation attatched to it, and after enough people
accuse you of it because of your art, you do start to question whether ANY type
of furry art is worth the hassle because it even starts to affect the clean art
too. Right now I'm working on several non-furry projects (including TALL TAILS,
and yes, I don't concider it "furry" but I don't mind if it's classified that
way unlike other comic book creators) and the positive reaction I've been
getting from them really doesn't encourage me want to look back into the fandom.
Don't get me wrong, I still do furry commissions (heck, I have enough still
piled up) but having it automatically associated with zoos does make it
difficult to show them around.
I was one of the people who never met zoos until I got into the fandom and I
really have to ask why a lot of them *are* here. I am not going to get into any
debate over whether it's right or wrong because my opinions are *set* and I
refuse to change them. I think what zoos do is absolutely wrong and it's getting
harder and harder to stay in the fandom and ignore them. I care what mundanes
think about my art because *they're* the ones that are hiring me. And even
though I have never had an employer give me grief over my furry art it is
getting harder to show especially with these new projects offering me a "safer"
alternative. For some reason, naked fantasy girls causes less contoversy than a
fully clothed fox girl playing a guitar.
Groups like FAASA and Burned Fur may look like good ideas initially but the
problem is that it's there's a lot more alternatives that make it easier to
*leave* furry than to stick around and fight. Then the real question becomes "is
furry fandom worth fighting for at all?"
--Daphne Lage (still a furry but just don't say it too loud... >_<)
****************************************************************
THE EGOWORKS: http://members.xoom.com/egoraven/index.htm
****************************************************************
TALL TAILS: http://members.xoom.com/egoraven/ttmain.htm
****************************************************************
Please direct comments or questions to e-mail. Remove ".ego" after net to reply.
****************************************************************
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
egor...@worldnet.att.net.ego> writes:
> Groups like FAASA and Burned Fur may look like good ideas initially
> but the problem is that it's there's a lot more alternatives that make
> it easier to *leave* furry than to stick around and fight. Then the
> real question becomes "is furry fandom worth fighting for at all?"
Well, having been a furry fan from WAY back, I'm here, and contributing to the
fandom in whatever way I can because I love anthropomorphics, and I, for one,
have put far too much into it, and get far too much out of it, to abandon the
village to the barbarians.
Dr. Cat
: They are seriously emotionally warped people who are in desperate need
: necessarily in that order.
You know, generally when I see people talking about someone else doing
something they think is bad, their response will fall somewhere into one
of two broad categories. The "I feel sorry for that person and wish they
would somehow get help" or "I am angry at that person and want to see
something bad happen to them."
This is the first time I can ever recall hearing someone say they want
BOTH things. Man, is that weird or what?
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Stranger things happen in C.)
rans...@au-au.extern.ucsd.edu
mau...@kendra.com (Richard Chandler - WA Resident) writes:
|> fandom in whatever way I can because I love anthropomorphics, and I, for one,
|> have put far too much into it, and get far too much out of it, to abandon the
|> village to the barbarians.
ooh, a crusade. dibs on the chain mail!
--
privacy is a delusion.
Cerulean
I won't comment on your opinions on what constitutes mental health,
I'll just answer your question of where the connection comes from.
The connection between anthro art and bestiality was originally made
by the sort of Oral Majority people who look for sin in everything,
and therefore will see bestiality in any combination of human and
animal.
Furry fandom reacted to this perception by assuming that there must be
bestialists somewhere in furry fandom creating the reputation. Once
the witch hunt started, THAT'S what attracted them. The braver ones
came looking to react to rumours of a "kill them all" sentiment in the
fandom. Some stayed to argue, and some stayed because they were
finding pretty pictures that appealed to them (and why wouldn't they?)
--
___vvz /( Absurd Notions is on! -> http://cerulean.st/absurdnotions/
<__,` Z / ( | Cerulean= | DC.D/? f s+ h++ Gm CB^P a $ d+++ l* g- e! i
`~~~) )Z) ( | Kevin Pease | FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( h+a!)oS uo!+ewJojuI - ,,Japuom o+ j7asJnoh 77aL,,
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<egor...@worldnet.att.net.ego> wrote:
[...]
>I was one of the people who never met zoos until I got into the fandom and I
>really have to ask why a lot of them *are* here.
Because they enjoy furry artwork?
Farry
(Cerulean) wrote:
>...
>The connection between anthro art and bestiality was originally made
>by the sort of Oral Majority people who look for sin in everything,
>and therefore will see bestiality in any combination of human and
>animal.
>...
Yes, I think that's likely. After all, the sort of art that's popular
in the fandom IS unusual by mainstream standards. Popular funny
animals are aimed at children and have cartoony featureless bodies
whereas fandom furries are usually realistic and human-like. Even when
fully clothed, the muscle-structure and natural curves of the body
look more sensual than most people expect to see on "kids stuff". Even
tolerant people can react with some surprise at seeing furry art for
the first time.
Of more significance, is the furry artists with a career in mainstream
animation. The big animators are twitchy with good reason. For
example, Disney, at huge expense, had to recall all stocks of a video
because of two frames having a just-discernable topless woman (if you
freeze-frame and look carefully). Disney considered that a better
option than risking the rumors and bad publicity that is so difficult
to counter in such circumstances. So it's not surprising that they
would "play-safe" and reject applicants with *ahem* unusual interests.
I see no simple solution to this. If necessary, people must carefully
manage their image for the sake of their career. I suspect that it's
the people who are less competent at this that are running into the
problems.
--
|\ /|
| \'_| Farry
___.-' @ `--o
/// / ____,' fa...@earthling.net
/ / ///~~/
The Egoworks
<7qb33e$7kf$3...@phaedrus.zeta.org.au>...
>On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 12:55:26 -0400, The Egoworks
><egor...@worldnet.att.net.ego> wrote:
>>I was one of the people who never met zoos until I got into the fandom and I
>>really have to ask why a lot of them *are* here.
>
>Because they enjoy furry artwork?
The problem is not that they enjoy furry art but the fact that they also say in
the same sentence that they are zoophiles. How many people have announced in
*this* forum that they are zoos? Why do they feel that comfortable in this
environment to make that announcement? Do they actually go to other public areas
wearing their zeta symbols and buttons that read "I'm a zoo, how 'bout you?" To
me it's like if NAMBLA decided to use comic book fandom and usenet forums as
their stomping grounds and used SDCC and other comic conventtions as a meeting
place where they openly displayed the fact that they are pedophiles. It doesn't
matter if they really are fans of comics. It's the fact that they're using the
forum for something more and totally unrelated to talking about comics. There
are plenty of animal related subjects that are unrelated to furry fandom and
shouldn't be connected to it. People aren't assuming that all furries are
vegetarians or animal rights activists - hey, they don't even automatically
think all furries are GAY. But they *DO* assume we are all animal molestors. And
*that's* the problem. If zoos were really just fans of furry art and writing and
kept it at that, there wouldn't be such a hoopla. But that's not the case at
all. It's almost as if they couldn't fathom the concept of not being able to
connect zoophilia to furry fandom. And I'm not even *talking* about whether it's
right or wrong - just the fact that it's *irrelevant* to furry fandom.
Well, I'm ending this discussion here as I feel I've already said plenty and
shouldn't be hanging around this place to begin with. In the end, I really doubt
anything will change - or get better.
The always pessimistic,
-- Daphne Lage
****************************************************************
THE EGOWORKS: The Official Daphne Lage
Homepage:http://members.xoom.com/egoraven/index.htm
****************************************************************
TALL TAILS: The Official Homepage: http://members.xoom.com/egoraven/ttmain.htm
Golden Woof
The Egoworks wrote:
> >Because they enjoy furry artwork?
>
> The problem is not that they enjoy furry art but the fact that they also say in
> the same sentence that they are zoophiles.
I have YET to meet a z00 that outright says that. I do know there a few that do,
but I have been to 4 cons, and met nearly 300furs in person and NOT a one says
this. I don't know where you hang out, who you meet, or who you cater too, but this
HAS to be and outright lie. (disclaimer: Not inteneded to start another BF threw me
down the stairs rant)
> How many people have announced in
> *this* forum that they are zoos?
Probably about a dozen or so, comparitivly to the thousands that read this forum.
> Why do they feel that comfortable in this environment to make that announcement?
There are sexy animal people type things they can relate to, they feel a bit of
kinship to know that others not quite like themselves are attracted sexually and not
sexually to. That is human nature to find something to bond with, a place of
feeling comfortable.
> Do they actually go to other public areaswearing their zeta symbols and buttons
> that read "I'm a zoo, how 'bout you?"
Well, since you asked, and I don't tell unless asked type deal, I ALWAYS wore a Zeta
pin and a FurPride pin on my hat. When asked, I would tell them what the FurPride
was. Is is a symbol to those of the 'Furry' community that I had pride in it, and
not just being a bi-furry character. I did NOT equate being bi as a person, but as
a character. If someon who was of moronic or visually moronic asked me about the
zeta, I would tell them it was just a thing, and be done with them. If they seemed
of a decent mental caliber I would gently explain to them that I was attracted to
animals in a deep kinship and loving manner, and go into non-descriptive details
(oxymoronic I know) about things. NEVER do I associate the fandom with it, because
of that taboo and the image it generates. Those who do, i am sorry, are morons.
(Disclaimer: {generically speaking to any reader}bite me if you get pissed, I don't
care.)
> To me it's like if NAMBLA decided to use comic book fandom and usenet forums as
> their stomping grounds and used SDCC and other comic conventtions as a meeting
> place where they openly displayed the fact that they are pedophiles.
That is some strong accusations. So.. then you are going to say that the 'furry'
community then uses its stronghold on people to promote guns, violence, and genetic
manipulation? Those are themes within 'furry' as well.
> It doesn't matter if they really are fans of comics. It's the fact that they're
> using the forum for something more and totally unrelated to talking about comics.
I see. Is this a 'professional' view or ascertation, or is this merely a
speculation? All the furs I know, z00 or not, all are fascinated to the extreme
with furry, and take it as precidence over anything else that falls under and within
the shadow of furry.
> Thereare plenty of animal related subjects that are unrelated to furry fandom and
> shouldn't be connected to it.
Furry is about animals, anthro and or not. Anthropomorphic is simply 'the
attributing of 'human-like' qualities to anything non-human in origion' including
animals, toasters, pencil shapeners, etc. Furry has that label because the majority
and componet make-up of its subject is that of animals, and animal related themes,
so, why else wouldn't they feel comfortable here, and be connected to it?
> People aren't assuming that all furries are vegetarians or animal rights activists
> - hey, they don't even automatically
> think all furries are GAY. But they *DO* assume we are all animal molestors.
Once again, the ideal of 'furries' being animal molestors (shudder) must be an area
speciffic thing or something. I live in SE Ohio, probably one of the most mentally
devoid areas in all the country, if not the world, and when I explain 'furry' as a
love and devotion to the artwork, stories, and creation of anthro/furry cartoons of
either tame or explicit nature, people are wowed by the concept. They don't
immediatly think that all furries are critter-humpers. I know from what I have been
told, and from my own theories, ALOT of this bad press stems from the California
region, where things are MORE tolerant and open then other parts of the country.
> And *that's* the problem. If zoos were really just fans of furry art and writing
> and kept it at that, there wouldn't be such a hoopla.
Ther lies the other problem. Those who are 'disgusted' at the cocept, or are
intolernt of it AUTOMATICALLY assume such. Many, Many, Many furs who are z00 keep
it under wraps, and don't equate furry with z00 stuff. How many people have to be
verbally beaten into the ground before they realize this? There are morons out
there who will jump up, and put a big old I LOVE FURRY AND Z00 AS ONE BIG CORNICOPIA
OF DRIVEL in a heartbeat, why, because their are morons, plain and simple. Those
who have some sense, those who know there is a difference don't. They only stand
up, take defense when someone constaly banters on about how evil, how morally wrong,
or how it is rape.
> But that's not the case at all. It's almost as if they couldn't fathom the concept
> of not being able to connect zoophilia to furry fandom. And I'm not even *talking*
> about whether it's right or wrong - just the fact that it's *irrelevant* to furry
> fandom.
Once again. The term Z00phila is a sexual attraction to animals, so is Z00algia
(trying to remmber off top of head, don't have the MEDICAL DICTIONARY handy at the
moment) In essence, eve those who are not z00 and who are thouroughly disgusted, and
repulsed and have a crusade against it, fall under the same catagorey if within the
same breath they oggle over the 'adult and seuxally explicite' material, because
they have an attraction to an animal, whether or not it be anthro or not. Remember,
'anthro' is just giving someone human attributes, not being human within itself.
> Well, I'm ending this discussion here as I feel I've already said plenty and
> shouldn't be hanging around this place to begin with. In the end, I really doubt
> anything will change - or get better.
>
> The always pessimistic,
>
> -- Daphne Lage
Well, I am pessimistic, yet optimistic that somethign will change. Either people's
minds will expand (fat chance) and or something revolutionary will happen and there
will be a mass understanding (fat chance there either). Read on about what I
posted, about a possible set of guidlines and proposials for a way to make the
fandom more understandable, and or better equated for this world of ours.
Keep posting, I like to hear and debate RATIONALLY to those who can keep from
exploding all over the screen.
--
Thé ŁůPhrŞnítÉ rÜŁé˛
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<egor...@worldnet.att.net.ego> wrote:
[...]
>The problem is not that they enjoy furry art but the fact that they
>also say in the same sentence that they are zoophiles. How many
>people have announced in *this* forum that they are zoos? Why do they
>feel that comfortable in this environment to make that announcement?
As meany things to do with socal questions "Why" is a difficalt
question to sort out. But I will try to explian what I think is
happening. For some reson or anthougher there was a slightly higher
then avergate number of zoo's in the fandom. They begain meeting
each other at cons ect, and then something interesting happened. They
discovered that there where not alone. They met other people like
them.
Just imagine how much of an impact that must have been on the life of
these isolated zoos? For people who have lived under the crushing
infulence of mainstream morality finding fellow zoos is like falling
in love. Such a person is going to try and inform other isolated
zoo's within the community, so that the isolated zoos can experence
what they are experencing.
S.J.Laitila
A very good way to say it. Good stuff...
Keep up the good work.
Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn
generalizations and scapegoating just doesn't sit well with me...]
Daphne Lage wrote:
> How many people have announced in
> *this* forum that they are zoos?
Probably a lot less than the number of people who have gone on misguided
crusades against it in this forum.
> Why do they feel that comfortable in this
> environment to make that announcement?
Why do people feel comfortable to go on misguided crusades about it here
if it has nothing to do with furry fandom in the first place?
> If zoos were really just fans of furry art and writing and
> kept it at that, there wouldn't be such a hoopla. But that's not the
> case at all.
Ahem.
My position is that zoophilia is off-topic for alt.fan.furry. Seems like
the only time I ever talk about it is when someone decides to make an
issue out of it. In other words, the people trying to "take back the
fandom" mention zoophilia a lot more often than I do.
If you don't like zoophilia being associated with furry fandom, perhaps
you should direct your criticism at them instead.
> It's almost as if they couldn't fathom the concept of
> not being able to connect zoophilia to furry fandom. And I'm not
> even *talking* about whether it's right or wrong - just the fact
> that it's *irrelevant* to furry fandom.
Yes, it is irrelevant to furry fandom.
But if it's so irrelevant, why do you keep bringing it up? The only
thing crusades against it ever accomplish is to increase the newsgroup's
relevance for the term in DejaNews search engines for years to come.
Is that what you want?
____________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage
http:/www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm
The Luphra'nite
As most will agree, when the truth sticks it ugly head out, most tend to clam
up, and or choose to save face in the long run.
That is a lesson it has taken me over a year to learn myself.
Susan Parkin
? the Platypus)) wrote:
>
>Just imagine how much of an impact that must have been on the life of
>these isolated zoos? For people who have lived under the crushing
>infulence of mainstream morality finding fellow zoos is like falling
>in love. Such a person is going to try and inform other isolated
>zoo's within the community, so that the isolated zoos can experence
>what they are experencing.
Yikes. Ok, then maybe they should have their OWN conferences
and stop hiding out in true fandom ones. In fact, I dare them to
strike out on their own and do it.
Susan
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
xyd...@my-deja.com> writes:
> But if it's so irrelevant, why do you keep bringing it up? The only
> thing crusades against it ever accomplish is to increase the
> newsgroup's relevance for the term in DejaNews search engines for years
> to come.
You make this point so often that I must conclude you're deliberately using it
as a red herring, as you are so often wont to do.
Correlation is meaningless. CONTEXT is important. Sure, someone can go onto
Deja News and look up Bestiality and find a high hit count on a.f.f, and then
they can READ a.f.f and discover that there's no support at all for it here
except for a few misguided twits who are equally villified.
It's like concluding that we should all go barefoot because 99.9% of all
victims of random street violence are wearing shoes. Or more relevantly, like
assuming godhatesfags.com is a gay site because it has a high word count for
Gay and Homosexual.
And another thing:
> Seems like the only time I ever talk about it is when someone decides
> to make an issue out of it.
So you can do your part to reduce this correlation which is so important to
you by NOT replying to those threads, because you then cause replies like this
one, which serve to make that count higher still. Arguing with anyone the way
you do is clearly counterproductive based on your own criteria (regardless of
what I think of your criteria) and therefore you shouldn't do it.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>On 29 Aug 1999 21:28:14 GMT, dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa (aka
>? the Platypus)) wrote:
>>[...] Such a person is going to try and inform other isolated
>>zoo's within the community, so that the isolated zoos can experence
>>what they are experencing.
>
> Yikes. Ok, then maybe they should have their OWN conferences
>and stop hiding out in true fandom ones. In fact, I dare them to
>strike out on their own and do it.
They already have there own conferences. They also attend furry ones,
because they also like furry art.
Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn
>Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn writes:
>> But if it's so irrelevant, why do you keep bringing it up? The only
>> thing crusades against it ever accomplish is to increase the
>> newsgroup's relevance for the term in DejaNews search engines
>> for years to come.
>
> You make this point so often that I must conclude you're deliberately
> using it as a red herring, as you are so often wont to do.
No, I make this point so often because unlike some people, I'm sick of
seeing crusades against things that have nothing to do with furry fandom
on this newsgroup.
>Correlation is meaningless. CONTEXT is important. Sure, someone
>can go onto Deja News and look up Bestia1ity and find a high hit
>count on a.f.f, and then they can READ a.f.f and discover that
>there's no support at all for it here except for a few misguided
>twits who are equally villified.
Calling me names does not strengthen your position, nor does it disprove
my statement that crusades like this never solve anything. The only
thing they ever accomplish is to increase the newsgroup's relevance for
the term in DejaNews search engines for years to come. Is this what you
want?
>It's like concluding that we should all go barefoot because 99.9%
>of all victims of random street violence are wearing shoes.
No, it's like concluding that we should be talking about funny animals
since furry fandom isn't about z00philia. My position is that I'd
rather see alt.fan.furry used for talking about funny animals instead of
crusades against things that have nothing to do with funny animals.
Frankly, I'm surprised you've decided to flame me for suggesting
discussions about z00philia have no place here, Rich. The irony of it
all just makes me laugh.
>> Seems like the only time I ever talk about it is when someone decides
>> to make an issue out of it.
>
>So you can do your part to reduce this correlation which is so
>important to you by NOT replying to those threads, because you
>then cause replies like this one, which serve to make that count
>higher still.
Why not just say those threads shouldn't be here in the first place?
Ah, I see. It's only okay to talk about z00philia on alt.fan.furry if
you're opposed to it. Anyone with an alternate viewpoint should be
expected to keep their mouth shut, right?
What a lovely double-standard.
No, I think if your position is going to be that people can post
anti-zoo stuff here, I should have just as much right to post pro-zoo
stuff here. Fair's fair. What's good for the goose is good for the
Chandler, as the saying goes.
Of course, that means we'll be having this same conversation again a few
years from now, because everyone knows alt.fan.furry wouldn't be worth
reading if it didn't have this stupid argument cycling through every
year or so.
That was sarcasm, in case you missed it.
Hey... here's a really neat idea: Since furry fandom isn't about
z00philia, and I suspect most people on this newsgroup don't want to
talk about z00philia, why don't we agree that z00philia is off-topic for
the newsgroup and get back to talking about funny animals?
_____________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm
I support Furry Peace! http://www.fur.com/peace/
Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn
> Hey... here's a really neat idea: Since furry fandom isn't about
> z00philia, and I suspect most people on this newsgroup don't want to
> talk about z00philia, why don't we agree that z00philia is off-topic
> for the newsgroup and get back to talking about funny animals?
Nah, that'd be too easy.
(And it doesn't involve scapegoating or infighting or a hate-filled
manifesto, either, so obviously it'll NEVER work...)
Besides, if the likes of Xydexx can tell Rich Chandler to do something,
and he does it, then that means that Xydexx has exerted some control and
influence over Rich Chandler, right?
Therefore, Rich Chandler shouldn't agree with Xydexx, even if it is a
good idea. Then they can keep having these stupid little arguments
about z00philia for years to come, because we all know that's the only
reason anyone reads alt.fan.furry anyway, right?
That was sarcasm again, in case you missed it. -:)
-X.
Forrest
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> :
> They already have there own conferences. They also attend furry ones,
> because they also like furry art.
Except of course the ones who don't like 'furry' and don't want to be
associated with it. I stumbled across the interesting fact of the existence
of that group while studying what folks are saying about furry on other NGs
(not a lot).
The Luphra'nite
Forrest wrote:
> Except of course the ones who don't like 'furry' and don't want to be
> associated with it. I stumbled across the interesting fact of the existence
> of that group while studying what folks are saying about furry on other NGs
> (not a lot).
There was a list a while back, that has been since removed of which there was a
few folks who pretty much thumbed their nose at furs. Sometthing with the
quote, "Don't bother contacting me if you think your a fantasy creature or some
'transposed' bodied or a were..."
I though that very 'jerkish' and was tempted to send them some pretty assenine
male, but I decided not to.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
damaging to his correlation position.
But rather than continue a pointless argument with him, I can merely fantasize
about sneaking in one day and inflating all his pool toys with Plaster of
Paris.
Rick Pikul
<egor...@worldnet.att.net.ego> wrote:
{Foomph...}
>I was one of the people who never met zoos until I got into the fandom and I
>really have to ask why a lot of them *are* here.
I can think of a few likely contributors to the larger number
of visible[i] zoos:
-Greater than general population levels of overlap, as a zoo
may be more likely to be furry than a random person.[0]
-The 'net effect, people tend to be more 'out' on the net then
they are in RL. (This only applies to OL fandom.)
-Another possible reason for them being out is that they feel
that they could not let an attack go by without defence[1].
-People who use deja/grep news to find bad things about those
they are arguing with.
There are probably more reasons that I haven't thought of.
{Foomph...}
>Groups like FAASA and Burned Fur may look like good ideas initially but the
>problem is that it's there's a lot more alternatives that make it easier to
>*leave* furry than to stick around and fight. Then the real question becomes "is
>furry fandom worth fighting for at all?"
The best way I can think of to fight it is to get everyone,
including the zoos, to publicly agree that there is no relationship
between zoophillia and furry (even if there are people that happen to
be into both[2]).
[i] It's one of those 'I've never met a <foo>' 'funny, I'm a
<foo> and you've known me for years' things. Some classic examples
being homosexual and atheist.
[0] People who like animals being more likely to like furry
than those who hate animals.
[1] Many of the furry/zoo flamewars have been started by an
'anti-zoo' posting a comdemnation (and call for others to fall in
line) out of the blue.
[2] There are likely Reformers[3] who love to sew, noone
accuses the Reform Party of being a sewing club.
[3] Members of the Reform Party of Canada, our extreme 'right
wing' party (so it's equivalent to the US Democrats :}.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>
>David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> :
>
>> They already have there own conferences. They also attend furry ones,
>> because they also like furry art.
>
>associated with it. I stumbled across the interesting fact of the existence
>of that group while studying what folks are saying about furry on other NGs
>(not a lot).
Stumbled on it? I thourt I pointed them out to you.
Forrest
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote :
> Stumbled on it? I thourt I pointed them out to you.
Probably both, though I think the former happened first.
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
> When did Xydexx turn into a short, heavy-set, bipedal aardvark?
*blink-blinks ky00tely*
Who, me?
____________________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony [ICQ: 7569393]
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm
Richard de Wylfin
xyd...@my-AIRHOSE-deja.com wrote:
You were referring to yourself in the third person, the way Cerebus
does.
^ ^
o-o
+
richard de wylfin http://i.am/a.furry.fox
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
> Karl Xydexx Jorgensen wrote:
> > > Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> > > When did Xydexx turn into a short, heavy-set, bipedal aardvark?
> >
> > *blink-blinks ky00tely*
> >
> > Who, me?
> >
> in CEREBUS
Oh ah. Xydexx should've known. Xydexx hasn't gotten around to reading
Cerebus, even though Rigel has all the "phone book" volumes of it and
has suggested he read it. Xydexx spends too much time arguing with Rich
Chandler instead.
Xydexx should probably go read Cerebus.[1] It'd be a lot more fun than
arguing with Rich Chandler. -:)
____________________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony [ICQ: 7569393]
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm
[1] Yeah, maybe I will... right after I finish "The
Professor and the Madman: A Tale of Murder,
Insanity, and the Making of the Oxford English
Dictionary", by Simon Winchester. It's not furry,
and I mainly picked it up because of the title,
but it's still a good read.
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
> You were referring to yourself in the third person, the way Cerebus
> does.
>
Or like boojum the gentle brown bunny, for that matter. -:)
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
xyd...@my-AIRHOSE-deja.com> writes:
> Xydexx should probably go read Cerebus.[1] It'd be a lot more fun
> than arguing with Rich Chandler. -:)
Well, maybe, but not when you get into "Reads". I was going through the phone
books at a pretty good clip and hit a brick wall there.
gre...@my-deja.com
15099908...@1cust28.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net>,
>
> > Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> > > When did Xydexx turn into a short, heavy-set, bipedal
aardvark?
> >
> > *blink-blinks ky00tely*
> >
> > Who, me?
> >
> > Xydexx Squeakypony [ICQ: 7569393]
> > Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage
> > http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm
>
> does.
>
nice deflation there.. ^_^
~grell
"imagine what you'll know tomorrow"
Paul F. Dietz
> [1] Yeah, maybe I will... right after I finish "The
> Professor and the Madman: A Tale of Murder,
> Insanity, and the Making of the Oxford English
> Dictionary", by Simon Winchester. It's not furry,
> and I mainly picked it up because of the title,
> but it's still a good read.
While on the subject of good reads, I recommend
"The Last Place On Earth" (formerly: Scott and Amundsen)
about the race to the south pole in 1911-12. It's
not very furry, although it has ponies and sled dogs
(most of which are eaten, however.)
This was the book that not just debunked, but
utterly destroyed, the Scott-the-hero myth.
Paul
Dwight J. Dutton
>
> Mark me up as a FAASA supporter.
>
>http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/8071
>
Haard to disagree with a blank page. Actually no page at all, an empty
directory.