The Furred Reich Manifesto
Brian O'connell
Welp, I think the time has come to put forward my views on the subject,
whereas it'll more than likely get enough flames to put Mrs. O'Leary's cow
to shame, it'll still show where this is all going...
What's wrong with the Burned Furs? Plenty... There's one 'goal', but
MANY agendas in terms of it's individual members, from stripping everything
controversial from furry fandom, through the outright destruction of furry
fandom... Several of it's more vocal members have displayed and demonstrated
this numerous times, through this newsgroup and other means...
Hell... Some of the members of the Burned Furs, such as Eric Blumrich, I
once considered as friends... I even supplied Eric with beer numerous times,
was an old drinking buddy, and smoked many a joint with him in the salad
days of furrydom, and published some of his materials in a shortlived
fanzine attempt... Nice to see that I can be made to regret my friendships
to anybody in this genre...
Basically, the Burned Furs are painting everyone with a wide brush, for
whatever reasons or whatever associations, they've damnned everyone, guilt
by association, regardless of what they prduce... If someone does one piece
that doesn't get the 'Burned Furs Seal of Approval', they damn the artist's
bulk of work summarily... Not that this isn't nessesary in some cases
there's some truly gawdawful works out there that demonstrates that some
things never improve with age...
But the fact is, they're damnning the whole for the acceptance or even
tolerance of a few controversial individuals, whether it be spooge artists
such as me, or beesteeality/zuphiles, or what have you... Well, now the
shoes on the other foot... I hereby condemn the whole of the Burned Furs for
their associations with the more controversial elements within THEIR
ranks... I refuse to EVER support, respect, associate, or befriend ANY of
them... I have better things to do, like filling my damnned orders, and
trying despite you, to produce something of value other than porn, without
financially castrating myself for YOUR benefit or ideals...
And you know what? I'm not leaving... EVER... Everywhere you look, I'll
be there... Laughing at you as I head home at the end of a con with money
that YOU could have made yourselves... But your so called morals and ideals
of course prevented you from doing because you refused to address a market
that was right there in front of you... And then you blame everyone else for
not wanting whatever you were selling? Grow up... If someone isn't buying
your work, it isn't any group or conspiracy, it's YOU... You have no place
complaining about an audience largely interested in adult material when
you're selling non adult material, than say a barbecued pork vendor trying
to market his wares in Iran...
So go ahead, keep being stubborn... You aren't hurting me at all...
You're only hurting yourselves... You've gotten nothing good done, produced
little to no results, a paper tiger with little to nothing going for it,
other than pounding the chests of the self righteous... Oh, wait, you
generated $100 or so for a cow program of some kind or another... That'd
cover what, a shank?
Et Tu Burned Furs!
</rant>
DawnWolf
><rant>
Yes indeed.
> And you know what? I'm not leaving... EVER... Everywhere you look, I'll
>be there... Laughing at you as I head home at the end of a con with money
>that YOU could have made yourselves... But your so called morals and ideals
>of course prevented you from doing because you refused to address a market
>that was right there in front of you... And then you blame everyone else for
>not wanting whatever you were selling? Grow up... If someone isn't buying
>your work, it isn't any group or conspiracy, it's YOU... You have no place
>complaining about an audience largely interested in adult material when
>you're selling non adult material, than say a barbecued pork vendor trying
>to market his wares in Iran...
*scritches behind his ear with one foot* The fandom in the US is
strange, I must say. Why all this ranting and raving about who buys
what? Why would it matter to an artist either way?
*sighs* I guess it's the fact that "furry" is actually a market over
there, so some people start treating it as such, and make their income
from it. Fine. However, to rephrase what Brian said: Once you are
catering to a clientele, you give up artistic freedom to a degree.
Deal with it. Noone forces you to make your living by furry artwork.
This reminds me of this strange "who is the best artist" discussion
recently. I saw lots of references to "who sells on both coasts", "who
sells outside furry", and so on. So _selling_ stuff is a measure of
how well a work is executed? That sounds ... just plain wrong. No
discussion of technique, or evolvement over time, or willingness to
explore new terrain ...
By these criteria, Enya would have to be an excellent musician, when
really all she does is make pretty cliche music that caters to the
market. Well ... I admit I listen to her too, occasionally. You can't
do it too often or you feel your brain rot :o)
To those of you who are happy drawing what will sell, or are so good
that what they draw sells anyway: Yay! Go right ahead, more power to
you. And to those who complain that furry's tastes are wrong: Maybe it
is time you rethought your approach. Start treating your art as art
again, not as a ware to be peddled. Find something to support you that
has _nothing_ to do with your furry art. And then enjoy drawing
_precisely_ what you wish to draw.
Or, as my dad used to say: Never make a hobby into a job, son. :o)
DawnWolf
Forrest
Brian O'connell <furball...@uswest.net> wrote :
> Basically, the Burned Furs are painting everyone with a wide brush, for
> whatever reasons or whatever associations, they've damnned everyone, guilt
> by association, regardless of what they prduce... If someone does one piece
> that doesn't get the 'Burned Furs Seal of Approval', they damn the artist's
> bulk of work summarily...
The current BF member list contains 43 names.
How many of them can you name, thereby indicating your familiarity with them?
How many of the ones you can't name do you recognize when reading the list?
Brian O'connell
Forrest <bct...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7n1gm9$7mb$1...@crucigera.fysh.org...
The point is moot... They are as a whole, regardless of some of their
members' ethics, morality, philosphy or what have you, making it their
policy to grossly condemn all artists, anyone does any materials they
wouldn't do themselves... None of the erotica artists to date have gone up
to Blumrich, Squee Rat, Ben Bruin, or what have you and said "Hey! You
aren't drawing porn! You can't be a furry if you arn't drawing porn!!!"...
They, however have been saying this all along, in one way shape or form...
The fact is, it's about art... It's always been about art with them...
However, condemning the whole of an artist's work based on a limited
sampling is nothing short of closemindedness and bigotry... What they fail
to take into account is, the reason as to why so many people like their
work, is the QUALITY of their work, en toto, not from one or two pieces that
appealed to them... They should be happier that the pride they get from
their work, and the praise in turn, was gained WITHOUT having to rely on
drawing sex scenes, nipples and dripping genitalia... Instead what do they
do? They come down on other artists for not following suit... Me? I like to
draw sex scenes, simply because it's one of the few times any beings can
give each other physical pleasure... The kinkier stuff? That's to appeal to
the various markets that it appeals to...
Brian O'connell
news:379542ad...@news.fur.com...> ><rant>
>
> Yes indeed.
<blahblahblah *snip*>
>>You have no place
> >complaining about an audience largely interested in adult material when
> >you're selling non adult material, than say a barbecued pork vendor
trying
> >to market his wares in Iran...
>
> *scritches behind his ear with one foot* The fandom in the US is
> strange, I must say. Why all this ranting and raving about who buys
> what? Why would it matter to an artist either way?
Oh, don't you know? In the US it's trendy to have nothing but guilt, but
none of the sin...;) Fact is, I like what little praise I recieve for my
work, artists in general are their worst critics, and when I do a pic that
leaves me dead tired at the end of the day, feeling burned out and wondering
if it was worth it, the occasional 'good work' or couple of bucks helps...
>
> *sighs* I guess it's the fact that "furry" is actually a market over
> there, so some people start treating it as such, and make their income
> from it. Fine. However, to rephrase what Brian said: Once you are
> catering to a clientele, you give up artistic freedom to a degree.
> Deal with it. Noone forces you to make your living by furry artwork.
Noone forces them to look at it either, or to draw it... I prefer to
draw it myself, and try to make some semblance of a living from it, as well
as taking the occasional odd job for non-furry art related work when I can
find it... The Burned Furs, regardless of how much Mary Kay cosmetics they
lather on the statment, want to tell you what to draw, what makes you an
artist, and who to sell to... All you have to do is look over AFF, 9 out of
10 (estimated) messages from the burned furs was exactly along those
lines... Hell, there's some who aren't even artists who're now golly gee
whiz self proclaimed experts on art these days!
>
> This reminds me of this strange "who is the best artist" discussion
> recently. I saw lots of references to "who sells on both coasts", "who
> sells outside furry", and so on. So _selling_ stuff is a measure of
> how well a work is executed? That sounds ... just plain wrong. No
> discussion of technique, or evolvement over time, or willingness to
> explore new terrain ...
> By these criteria, Enya would have to be an excellent musician, when
> really all she does is make pretty cliche music that caters to the
> market. Well ... I admit I listen to her too, occasionally. You can't
> do it too often or you feel your brain rot :o)
I've said it about MP3's and the music industry; if every band charged
just $1 to download a good mp3 file of their music, then they could actually
refine their music based on real figures from genre/quality sales, and as a
result, there'd be a whole lot less of 'I just spent $20 on a disk for *1*
song?!?'...
It's the same way with commercial art (which frankly is what a lot of
furry art for hire is, it ain't selling shaving cream, but it's selling)...
And NONE of the Burned Furs have come up to me, or any other erotic artist,
and said, "Here's $40, could you do me a watercolor of two elk morphs in
classic 7th century Anglo Saxon armor in battle?", or "Just a vixen in a
nightgown holding a rose?"... Not a single one... They'd rather punish those
for not drawing what they want, would rather not put their money where their
mouths are, and would rather have people who draw erotica feeling guilty for
ever picking up a pencil in the first place, than actually promoting change
and encouraging REAL diversity in art... I've seen plenty of clean and
naughty material myself, and have promoted both... I have yet to know anyone
in the Burned Furs who's done similarly, except for Darrel Exline and his
efforts with ConFurence... Wish you the best of luck with it, Darrel...
>
> To those of you who are happy drawing what will sell, or are so good
> that what they draw sells anyway: Yay! Go right ahead, more power to
> you. And to those who complain that furry's tastes are wrong: Maybe it
> is time you rethought your approach. Start treating your art as art
> again, not as a ware to be peddled. Find something to support you that
> has _nothing_ to do with your furry art. And then enjoy drawing
> _precisely_ what you wish to draw.
Better yet, stop prosecuting people for drawing whatever they want...
Nobody prosecutes them, just annoys them perhaps when they get orders for
hermaphroditic vixens...
That's when you politely smile, turn down the money, and point in the
direction of Doug Winger...;)
Forrest
Brian O'connell <furball...@uswest.net> :
> The point is moot... They are as a whole, regardless of some of their
> members' ethics, morality, philosphy or what have you
Even when the members' ethics, morals and philosophies conflict wildly, as
they in fact do?
> making it their policy to grossly condemn all artists, anyone does
> any materials they wouldn't do themselves...
Even though their only listed "official" policy statements are art-neutral?
From the FAQ:
"Spooge is a personal choice, and like any choice, it has repercussions. Some
artists choose not to make it, but we have no quarrel with those who do. When
Squee Rat wrote the Manifesto, spooge was not one of her concerns. Artwork is
still artwork, regardless of its content. What is a concern, however, is that
spooge has become increasingly popular with audiences who otherwise have no
interest in anthropomorphic artwork, stories. etc. We believe that this has
been a contributing factor to the genre's negative image."
-A- BF may be anti-naughty-art. On the other hand I know of one or two BF/BF
sympathizers who own most every BO'C portfolio in print.
Brian O'connell
>
> Brian O'connell <furball...@uswest.net> :
> > The point is moot... They are as a whole, regardless of some of
their
> > members' ethics, morality, philosphy or what have you
>Even when the members' ethics, morals and philosophies conflict wildly, as
> they in fact do?
Moot point, if any one gets their way in terms of agenda, the rest will
follow in pushing theirs... Then they'll tell you, Charla, or anyone else
that they aren't 'true' burned furs because they didn't go far enough...
That's what extremism is about... So far, all that the extremists have done
have not in one instance provided any real benefits to the genre, instead
providing ample material and cause for the genre's further disintigration as
a whole...
>
> > making it their policy to grossly condemn all artists, anyone does
> > any materials they wouldn't do themselves...
>
> Even though their only listed "official" policy statements are
art-neutral?
> From the FAQ:
> "Spooge is a personal choice, and like any choice, it has repercussions.
Some
> artists choose not to make it, but we have no quarrel with those who do.
When
> Squee Rat wrote the Manifesto, spooge was not one of her concerns. Artwork
is
> still artwork, regardless of its content. What is a concern, however, is
that
> spooge has become increasingly popular with audiences who otherwise have
no
> interest in anthropomorphic artwork, stories. etc. We believe that this
has
> been a contributing factor to the genre's negative image."
From the very same FAQ:
"Anthropomorphics fandom is being overrun by sexually dysfunctional,
socially stunted and creatively bankrupt hacks and pervs."
Socially stunted... Hmmm... Think about what that says... Have you ever
seen a single genre of fandom where they weren't being 'overrun with
socially stunted' people? Let alone sexually dysfunctional?
Hacks, while having no real definition, is someone who repeats
themselves, showing no signs of creativity or imagination within the
artistic or literary community... This can also be likened to furry artists
(occasional hackdom is something I myself am guilty of, true) or authors...
Once again, from the FAQ:
"2) WE STRONGLY DISCOURAGE the support of acts such as bestiality,
plushophilia, fursuit sex and other things seen as "wrong" by non-fandom
individuals (known by fans as "mundanes"). It will be easier for non-fans to
sympathize and identify with anthro art if these elements are, if not
eliminated, then pushed to the far outer fringes and rendered irrelevant to
the fandom at large."
Many could easily say that sex, or sexually explicit material is
irrelevant to the fandom at large, the mainstream of mundania as well
considers such to be 'wrong'... Or has everyone gotten so out of touch they
forgot every single thing the right wingers, feminist and civic action
groups have done to prohibit anyone from accessing such materials? Pushing
it to the outer fringes is an interesting concept, as that goes along the
lines of segregationism... Also, I'd like to know, how many furry artists
that are (a) parents, and (b)have done erotic material in order to support
or partially support said children, and how many of them would like the idea
of losing that income due to furry fandom's equivilent of NIMBY's?
Amy 'Amara' Pronovost
was chased around by rabid Ewoks for posting this drivel!
>This reminds me of this strange "who is the best artist" discussion
>recently. I saw lots of references to "who sells on both coasts", "who
>sells outside furry", and so on. So _selling_ stuff is a measure of
>how well a work is executed? That sounds ... just plain wrong. No
>discussion of technique, or evolvement over time, or willingness to
>explore new terrain ...
Okay, I was the one that said "Success outside of the fandom"
By success I didn't mean how much money you're making, otherwise I
would have put 'Sales'.
I meant 'How many people outside of this little circle of Furry know
and care who you are or do you even draw outside furry?'
By success outside the fandom it also proves that you are willing to
not only explore new artistic terrain media wise, but to also explore
new subject matters, which bring about new challenges. Do you think I
drew /any/ tech before my Star Wars Kids art? Not enough to brag
about, that's for sure, but there's no way in hell I'm going to say
'no' to these people, so I happily draw (Got something so close to
model that I was told to cartoonify it a little. I'm still proud of
that sketch)
I also work not only outside of furry fandom, but outside of Star
Wars. I draw dragons, and biologogical style illustrations from life.
I've drawn people from life, I've scribbled in airports while watching
people talk on phones, wait in lines, scratch their butts etc :)
I've started to do some arty farty stuff with painter. Not all od this
stuff reaches te web, in fact a very very very small percentage of the
scribbles I'm doing lately even go within a metre of the scanner.
Um.. I've gone way off track
Success isn't merely a measure of money.
I'm not rich, but I feel i am successful.
And I know one thing. If I do get rich, it won't be from Furry Fandom
(Doesn't mean I'm leaving furry, either). I'm reaching for the stars,
baby.. it's the only way to go.
Amy - Gotta get dressed for work
-
"Are you sure about this? Trusting our pants to a boy we
hardly know?" - Padme, the PANTom Menace
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Amy 'Amara' Pronovost: Illustrator, Star Wars artist, cartoonist
am...@flyingarmadillo.com http://www.flyingarmadillo.com
BlackNo1
></rant>
BOC:s ranting... How cute... Say, when'll ya leave again?
Brian O'connell
news:7n1rmq$npu$3...@tron.sci.fi...
> ><rant>
> ></rant>
>
> BOC:s ranting... How cute... Say, when'll ya leave again?
The question is: When are YOU leaving?
Forrest
Brian O'connell <furball...@uswest.net> :
>>>The point is moot... They are as a whole, regardless of some of
>>>their members' ethics, morality, philosphy or what have you
>>Even when the members' ethics, morals and philosophies conflict wildly, as
>> they in fact do?
>
> Moot point, if any one gets their way in terms of agenda, the rest will
> follow in pushing theirs...
As yet, however, there is no leadership or even a dominant faction. (Recall
Joe Rosales's "intellectual tapioca" judgement.)
Scientific method may be useful here.
Hypothesis: BF is opposed to adult fur artists.
What does this hypothesis predict? That adult fur artists would not be
welcome in BF.
Look for evidence.... Jeremy Bernal, adult fur artist, has been listed as a
supporter, if not a member -- indicating that the hypothesis is incorrect.
Further testing would be of use, e.g. by having other adult fur artists apply
for membership. Perhaps even yourself.
Brian O'connell
I'm not willing to become involved in the greatest experiment in
backstabbing that the Burned Furs represent...
NeuroManson
3) The presence of these groups has caused a number of anthropomorphic
artists to produce material to cater to their tastes, giving the entire
genre an unfortunate reputation as yet another form of pornography.
Which in essense blames the artists indirectly, for their catering to
the groups stated as 'harming the fandom'... Also this implies censorship,
because as stated, the desire to gather erotic material can only be
countered by EVERY SINGLE ARTIST refusing to produce said artwork... If you
don't have erotic material on your website or for sale at a con, the pervs
as it were, wouldn't be approaching you for sales...
As stated in the FAQ:
1.) What is the Burned Fur movement ?
The Burned Fur movement is an organized attempt to return to the basic,
untarnished premise of "furry" fandom, and to disassociate from the more
distasteful, unrelated, or deviant aspects of supposed "furrydom". No more,
no less. Contrary to what some would choose to believe, we're not looking
for a holy war, or a witch-hunt. Only secession.
What is the definition of distasteful? What definition do you have in
mind? That's what's considered as distasteful, by either a majority or a
minority, whereas by the whim and judgment of any given group can be used to
determin what is inappropriate, distasteful or otherwise... Research the CDA
and you can see in clear outlines that the Burned Furs' agenda has exactly
the same problems going for it...
If someone in the Burned Furs determines that Jeremy Bernal, for
example, creates tasteless art (hypothetically, not in reality, I hope),
does that mean he's next to go?
Also stated in the FAQ:
6.) Is this an anti-spooge movement ?
No. Remember, "furry" has it's share of adult enthusiasts, and adults have a
tendency to have the occasional adult thought. Some furs enjoy committing
this to paper, while some don't. Spooge is a personal choice, and like any
choice, it has repercussions. Some artists choose not to make it, but we
have no quarrel with those who do. When Squee Rat wrote the Manifesto,
spooge was not one of her concerns. Artwork is still artwork, regardless of
its content. What is a concern, however, is that spooge has become
increasingly popular with audiences who otherwise have no interest in
anthropomorphic artwork, stories. etc. We believe that this has been a
contributing factor to the genre's negative image.
An interest in adult artwork, imagery, or writings will ALWAYS exist...
There's plenty of hentai fans who've never heard of Akira, there's plenty of
underground comics fans that have every copy of Horny Biker Sluts that have
no idea of Dr Atomic, Dope, Zap, Pudge: Girl Blimp, or all the other
underground comics in existance... Whether those interests have actually had
any negative effect or not on those industries has little to no effect on
their outward image... 'Spooge is a personal choice, and like any choice
it has repercussions'... In other words, it's those spooge artist's fault
things are as bad as they are, these are the repercussions of having a
liberal view on their art's subject matter... Once again too, while the
statement dances neatly around the actual issue, once again it's masked
message is that all spooge artists are responsible for the perverts being
here in the first place... Once again, the only way to get rid of said
perverts is to stop 'supplying them' with incentive to join in... Once
again, telling the artists to censor themselves... Once again, telling the
artists what to draw, or suffer said repercussions...
Finally, the end issue is motivation... The Burned Furs as I said
before, does nothing to motivate furry artists to draw anything different...
Unless you count aversion therapy, in that case it's never going to work...
And me? I make it a point to question anyone who tells me 'It's for your
own good, you just don't know it yet'...
DawnWolf
>> *scritches behind his ear with one foot* The fandom in the US is
>> strange, I must say. Why all this ranting and raving about who buys
>> what? Why would it matter to an artist either way?
>
> Oh, don't you know? In the US it's trendy to have nothing but guilt, but
>none of the sin...;) Fact is, I like what little praise I recieve for my
>work, artists in general are their worst critics, and when I do a pic that
>leaves me dead tired at the end of the day, feeling burned out and wondering
>if it was worth it, the occasional 'good work' or couple of bucks helps...
Ok, point conceded. What I was thinking of was more along the lines of
those artists that complain that all they may draw is spooge, because
the fandom won't buy enough non-spooge (re the discussion just before
CF10).
Of course it is nice to be appreciated. But when it comes to
compromising your art or losing sales, then an artist has a personal
choice to make. They can cater to the market, and draw what they do
not want to draw. Money flows. They can draw what they want to draw,
and be so good at it/convince people to buy, that money still flows.
Or they can draw what they want to draw and find another source of
income. All these are perfectly valid choices.
What I find annoying is the artists that find out that furry fandom
won't support their style of art (possibly because it does not contain
enough spooge), and then bitch at the fandom at large for it. Let me
put it this way: Treat the fandom like a market, and it will _react_
like a market. It's every artist's choice, really.
Anyway, now _I_ am ranting :o)
> Noone forces them to look at it either, or to draw it... I prefer to
>draw it myself, and try to make some semblance of a living from it, as well
>as taking the occasional odd job for non-furry art related work when I can
>find it... The Burned Furs, regardless of how much Mary Kay cosmetics they
>lather on the statment, want to tell you what to draw, what makes you an
>artist, and who to sell to... All you have to do is look over AFF, 9 out of
[...]
>nightgown holding a rose?"... Not a single one... They'd rather punish those
>for not drawing what they want, would rather not put their money where their
>mouths are, and would rather have people who draw erotica feeling guilty for
>ever picking up a pencil in the first place, than actually promoting change
>and encouraging REAL diversity in art... I've seen plenty of clean and
[...]
>Better yet, stop prosecuting people for drawing whatever they want...
A long quote, sorry for that. So ... what you are saying is: The BF
have some influence? You use words like "punish" and "prosecute". All
these statements would only make sense if the BF did more than just
post on AFF, or put out the odd web site.
Please explain this to me, Brian, I am truly puzzled. I had _assumed_
BF was just a loud-mouthed fringe group, and have treated them like
that ... that is, ignored them largely. I just cannot take BF
seriously. I mean, excuse me, a group that has a member with a "party
HQ" site? It may be annoying, but it sure ain't serious.
Or that is my impression. So how, exactly, other than through silly
posts on AFF which can be filtered or simply ignored, do the BF
prosecute and punish artists? Have you experienced such
prosecution/punishment?
I would like to say clearly, because this medium does not convey my
mimics, does it: I am _not_ trying to rip into you, Brian. I _am_
wondering whether either a) I am wrong re the power of BF or b) you
are taking them too seriously.
Somewhat non sequitur: In the Apple II fandom, there is a guy called
"Dr. Tom". He's annoying. You know what makes him "powerful"? That
people will react to him, and thus he has the power to start flame
wars over and over again. Ignore him, and he goes away.
With the BF, a similar approach may work. Ignore them for the most
part, and when they step over the line, give them a slap on the
muzzle. Stepping over the line would be RL harrassment of artists or
customers, for example ... that's what con sec is for.
DawnWolf
DawnWolf
>On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:43:22 GMT, sbeh...@arrowweb.com (DawnWolf)
>was chased around by rabid Ewoks for posting this drivel!
>
>Okay, I was the one that said "Success outside of the fandom"
>
>By success I didn't mean how much money you're making, otherwise I
>would have put 'Sales'.
>
>I meant 'How many people outside of this little circle of Furry know
>and care who you are or do you even draw outside furry?'
>
>By success outside the fandom it also proves that you are willing to
>not only explore new artistic terrain media wise, but to also explore
>new subject matters, which bring about new challenges. Do you think I
Thank you for the clarification, Amara. That outlook was actually what
I was hoping for ... the fandom is too materialistic as it is. That is
my impression, of course, and far be it from me to try and reform the
fandom ... no Sir, I really don't think so :o)
>Success isn't merely a measure of money.
Right on :o)
DawnWolf
DawnWolf
[Pretty good analysis of BF manifesto]
May I add "Me too"? :o) Just that, in addition to all that, I refuse
to become too involved with the BF. I would rather write another piece
of erotica for my mate ... both take the same time, and you have one
guess as to which activity gives more satisfaction. :o)
DawnWolf
Alan \TriGem\ Kennedy
WTG Brian Ya got my support, or as much as I can type.
--
Alan \\TriGem\\ Kennedy ICQ #8781052 www.furnation.com/trigem
*please excuse my snippynes, as I have went cold turkey*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
88888888\/--\/ moc.liamtoh@megirt \/--\/ Reverse to Get email.88888888
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Live hard, die young, and hope they do not have to cut a hole in your
casket for ya boner. - me.
Brian O'connell
me, so I had to post under my alternate (forgetting to change the name and
e-mail to fit, doh!)news:3797a366...@news.fur.com...
True, if it's work you've done in love, not much wrong can be said of
it, it's that way with art as well... I love to draw, regardless of the
subject matter, really... Which is why I view the Burned Furs actions and
activities as prosecution and punishment... They're attacking something I
love, not in so much as the spooge, but the ability to draw, whatever I
like, and to get the sensation that I actually created something real in a
sense...
Christ on a pogostick people, theres 'distateful' elements EVERYWHERE
you look... What are you going to do about it? Stop living? Pursue the
tasteful stuff, promote the living hell out of it! Don't beat on people who
like the naughty stuff, acting as effigy for whatever failures lie on your
behalf, you're only cheating yourselves TWICE over...
>
> DawnWolf
>
Hangdog
> <snip>
Tune: "Greensleeves"
Alas, O'Connell, you do us wrong
To cast us off discourteously,
For we've endured you for so long
Just tolerating thy company.
Chorus:
Greenteeth says he's going to go
Greenteeth says he's quite annoyed
Greenteeth says he's out of dough--
And who caused thy problems, Greenteeth?
We have been ready at your hand
With cash commissions thou dids't crave:
When we the promised art demand,
You hide, delay, deny, then rave.
Greenteeth says he's going to go
Greenteeth says he's quite annoyed
Greenteeth says he's out of dough--
And who caused thy problems, Greenteeth?
Thou petty oaf, thou shameful blight,
Whose outbreaks come recurrently,
This song of mine describes you right:
You're a.f.f's uncured VD!
Greenteeth says he's going to go
Greenteeth says he's quite annoyed
Greenteeth says he's out of dough--
And who caused thy problems, Greenteeth?
--Hangdog, Burned Fur
Brian O'connell
energy you wasted on flaming to producing real actions instead, and actually
improving the state of the fandom as you repeatedly lie about doing, you may
actually move up a millimeter or two higher than the scum of the food chain
you represent... What? Got your private whore Roxxiana to waste her attempts
at filking skills again?
Sung to 'It's Tough to be a Girl Musician' by Spike Jones...
It's tough to be a Burned Fur Flamer,
Especially if you happen to be a scmuck!
You spend day and night,
trying to pick intellectual fights,
When noone else can even give a fuck!
You talk like you're cool, but you're so lame,
The best thing coming from your ass is flame,
It's tough to be a Burned Fur Flamer,
Especially if you happen to be,
The nuts dropped from the fandom tree!
Especially if you happen to be a schmuck!
M. Mitchell Marmel
Hangdog wrote:
> This song of mine describes you right:
> You're a.f.f's uncured VD!
How do you spell relief? K-I-L-L-F-I-L-E! That's Killfile brand Message
Filters!
Ask the man who owns one! They're milder, much milder! And now mentholated!
Ask for them by name!
-MMM-
Brian O'connell
'humanity' display their prowess and lack thereof... They expect me to be
sympathetic to them, but cannot give any sympathy on their own... How sad a
life they must have had where even the slightest need for sympathy and
caring they were denied in their youth, and insistance of delivering same to
everyone they meet... As for their friends... As Max Headroom once said,
'With friends like these, who needs enemas?'
And DawnWolf actually THOUGHT I would want to join the Burned Furs with
this behavior from Hangdog as an example? Excuse me, I must now go vomit
violently...
Brian O'connell
ahhhh, much better now...
Time to find another flunky Random! h! I can't hear him either, just his
sweaty pudgy fingers pummelling the keyboard in frustration... Glee!
M. Mitchell Marmel <marm...@drexel.edu> wrote in message
news:3794CBA8...@drexel.edu...
Brian O'connell
Brian O'connell <furball...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:7n2j08$oph$1...@crucigera.fysh.org...
*sneep!*
> And DawnWolf actually THOUGHT I would want to join the Burned Furs
with
> this behavior from Hangdog as an example? Excuse me, I must now go vomit
> violently...
Correction: It was Forrest who suggested I join the Burned Furs...
Brian O'connell
news:7n1tgi$glb$1...@crucigera.fysh.org...
>
> Brian O'connell <furball...@uswest.net> :
a
> supporter, if not a member -- indicating that the hypothesis is incorrect.
> Further testing would be of use, e.g. by having other adult fur artists
apply
> for membership. Perhaps even yourself.
See Hangdog's response to this thread and you'll see just WHY I would
never apply for membership with the burned furs... I may be burned, but I'll
never be one of THEM...
(of which I believe would be the first time both sides agree, with ample
amounts of relief)
Brian O'connell
rational discussion, as well as hypothesi being in the pluses, while flames
and off topic postings being the negatives) stands as:
BOC: 3
BF: -2
And now for the halftime show, the Ahmish Cheerleading Squad!
'Ummm, we thought this was supposed to be a barn raising?'
XIP the Kangy
> "NeuroManson" <Spamme...@Hell.com> wrote:
>
> [Pretty good analysis of BF manifesto]
>
> May I add "Me too"? :o) Just that, in addition to all that, I refuse
> to become too involved with the BF. I would rather write another piece
> of erotica for my mate ... both take the same time, and you have one
> guess as to which activity gives more satisfaction. :o)
>
> DawnWolf
Can I add a "Me too"(or would that be three?)? The little bit I've seen
of BF is enough to convince me to ignore them.
XiP the kangy
+---------------------------------------------------+
Fur Peace- “Can’t we all just get along?”
“A person is smart, people are dumb,
panicky animals and you know it”--MiB
+---------------------------------------------------+
@889
Alan \TriGem\ Kennedy
HUSH!!
Gessh.. take it with a grain of salt and go on.
Just take a ribbin and move on.
Please, I dont want to see you guys argue over filks. Okay?
Lets do something creative besides argue over this stuff over again. Please?
I have found a new respect for both of you, don't make me regret it.
Cerulean
>A long quote, sorry for that. So ... what you are saying is: The BF
>have some influence? You use words like "punish" and "prosecute". All
>these statements would only make sense if the BF did more than just
>post on AFF, or put out the odd web site.
I suspect he means "persecute." Persecution takes place on all levels.
Nobody's been prosecuted yet.
--
___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 ( o6u!oq--c'aJay+ hpoqhue aJay+ s! `u!>s ay+ heme 7aad noh jI
Brian O'connell
it is, so soon it may be prosecution rather than persecution either way... I
still wouldn't be surprised if it was one of them that ratted on CF10...
Cerulean <kevin...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3794e6d6...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
Cerulean
>By these criteria, Enya would have to be an excellent musician, when
>really all she does is make pretty cliche music that caters to the
>market. Well ... I admit I listen to her too, occasionally. You can't
>do it too often or you feel your brain rot :o)
Hey now, I happen to think Enya is an excellent musician, with a
golden voice. If she were catering to the market, all of her music
would sound the same, but she tries different things. There are some
pieces I enjoy, and other pieces I don't, but they are all well
crafted. Catering to the market would mean cranking out clones of
Orinoco Flow as soon as it was being used in commercials, and never
doing anything else.
The fact of the matter is, most people wouldn't buy Enya albums.
They're all buying whatever renaming of punk or rap has most recently
supplanted popular music. Enya appeals to a subsection of the
population who actually like what she does. It's the same with art. Do
what you like, and your market will find you if you do it well. If
doing what you like gives you the stigma of "furry art" or "new age
music," that's a small price to pay for making your work easier to
find by the people who like it.
Alan \TriGem\ Kennedy
Cerulean wrote:
> Quoth DawnWolf:
>
> >By these criteria, Enya would have to be an excellent musician, when
> >really all she does is make pretty cliche music that caters to the
> >market. Well ... I admit I listen to her too, occasionally. You can't
> >do it too often or you feel your brain rot :o)
>
> Hey now, I happen to think Enya is an excellent musician, with a
> golden voice. If she were catering to the market, all of her music
> would sound the same, but she tries different things. There are some
> pieces I enjoy, and other pieces I don't, but they are all well
> crafted. Catering to the market would mean cranking out clones of
> Orinoco Flow as soon as it was being used in commercials, and never
> doing anything else.
>
> The fact of the matter is, most people wouldn't buy Enya albums.
> They're all buying whatever renaming of punk or rap has most recently
> supplanted popular music. Enya appeals to a subsection of the
> population who actually like what she does. It's the same with art. Do
> what you like, and your market will find you if you do it well. If
> doing what you like gives you the stigma of "furry art" or "new age
> music," that's a small price to pay for making your work easier to
> find by the people who like it.
>
> --
Simply, I got two enya albums, I like her, and she is good?
I collect furry bad and good, like music. Tell me how many folks like the
Afghan whigs, or Bad Religion, to White Zombie? Hmm? Same with furry, mided
tastes, mixed music, all good!
BlackNo1
>The question is: When are YOU leaving?
I've given the promise to be the last man standing in furry fandom,
so you wish. The day I'll leave furry fandom... Will be the day I'm
dead.
BlackNo1
>supporter, if not a member -- indicating that the hypothesis is incorrect.
Yes, true. And, to my defense I would say, that anything written by me not
under the name 'S.J.Laitila' is considered an official statement made by
a Burned Fur. BlackNo1 is considered only a character, as anyone can't
behave online, like they do in RL. So that is the main explanation to my
rudeness.
Matt Sheridan
> energy you wasted on flaming to producing real actions instead, and
actually
> improving the state of the fandom as you repeatedly lie about doing, you
may
> actually move up a millimeter or two higher than the scum of the food
chain
> you represent... What? Got your private whore Roxxiana to waste her
attempts
> at filking skills again?
Sounds like Hangdog hit a nerve, there....
Matt
Forrest
> > And DawnWolf actually THOUGHT I would want to join the Burned Furs
> with
> > this behavior from Hangdog as an example? Excuse me, I must now go vomit
> > violently...
>
> Correction: It was Forrest who suggested I join the Burned Furs...
Yes, and I still do, and here's why:
Karl Popper once invented something called the Principle of Falsifiability.
He said that when an assertion is made, for it to be meaningful it must be
falsifiable -- that there must be some conceivable set of circumstances under
which it would not be true. Statements that cannot be falsified, e.g. "there
is an elf sitting on my shoulder undetectable by any means whatsoever" are
actually emotive statements, expressing a view of the world (as it were)
rather than assertions of fact.
Until the BF movement is subjected to testing to determine what its actual
stances and positions are and what its members actually do believe it will
continue to exist in the vague state it does today, an unending flamewar in
which every side can believe itself to be in the right because no side is
actually making an assertion, merely emotive and emotional statements.
I believe in letting the facts speak for themselves.
Matt Sheridan
for
> whatever reasons or whatever associations, they've damnned everyone, guilt
> by association, regardless of what they prduce...
Uh . . . no.
> But the fact is, they're damnning the whole for the acceptance or even
> tolerance of a few controversial individuals, whether it be spooge artists
> such as me, or beesteeality/zuphiles, or what have you...
Where are you getting this?
> Well, now the
> shoes on the other foot... I hereby condemn the whole of the Burned Furs
for
> their associations with the more controversial elements within THEIR
> ranks...
I think you started out there in the first place, actually. You're
generalizing us as people who generalize everything else. Ben Bruin might
"damn" everything Buckyboy's ever done, but I've got no problem with most of
his work. I don't care who's friends with plushophiles and bestialists.
Hell, -I'm- friends with a plushophile. I ain't looking to kick Dave
Hopkins or even Bucky outta the fandom 'cause they get themselves off with
stuffed animals.
> And you know what? I'm not leaving... EVER... Everywhere you look,
I'll
> be there...
Er . . . no, ya really won't.
> But your so called morals and ideals
> of course prevented you from doing because you refused to address a market
> that was right there in front of you... And then you blame everyone else
for
> not wanting whatever you were selling? Grow up... If someone isn't buying
> your work, it isn't any group or conspiracy, it's YOU...
Have you heard Burned Furs bitching about not being able to sell anything
that's not porn? Please direct me to where this was said.
> Et Tu Burned Furs!
"And You Burned Furs!"? Are you sure you're using that right?
Matt
Brian O'connell
news:7n30sm$t42$1...@crucigera.fysh.org...
> > Basically, the Burned Furs are painting everyone with a wide brush,
> for
> > whatever reasons or whatever associations, they've damnned everyone,
guilt
> > by association, regardless of what they prduce...
>
> Uh . . . no.
Uh, yes... They have... Anyone with nominal comprehension that reads
the entirity of the Burned Furs site will see this... Cover it with as much
Mary Kay cosmetics as you like, it doesn't do very well to cover the
ugliness...
>
>
> > But the fact is, they're damnning the whole for the acceptance or
even
> > tolerance of a few controversial individuals, whether it be spooge
artists
> > such as me, or beesteeality/zuphiles, or what have you...
>
> Where are you getting this?
Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the Burned Furs as a
whole have been this, ESPECIALLY here in AFF... Read your own material...
It's spelled out chapter by chapter, to the point you can almost completely
repaste the entire manifesto and FAQ page from what I quoted...
>
>
> > Well, now the
> > shoes on the other foot... I hereby condemn the whole of the Burned Furs
> for
> > their associations with the more controversial elements within THEIR
> > ranks...
>
> I think you started out there in the first place, actually. You're
> generalizing us as people who generalize everything else. Ben Bruin might
> "damn" everything Buckyboy's ever done, but I've got no problem with most
of
> his work. I don't care who's friends with plushophiles and bestialists.
> Hell, -I'm- friends with a plushophile. I ain't looking to kick Dave
> Hopkins or even Bucky outta the fandom 'cause they get themselves off with
> stuffed animals.
Damn straight, that's the risks of broad generalizations... And
generally? I've had more than my share of scapegoating in this genre... I
know the signs when they show themselves all too well when the holy rollers
get a hare up their ass, especially in this genre... And especially whenever
*I* dared to question or criticise other furries' actions... So what makes
the Burned Furs so special? Furthermore, the majority of the vocal members
of the Burned Furs are self described proponants of censorship...
THEY HAVE SAID THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN, OR ARE YOU BLIND???
>
>
> > And you know what? I'm not leaving... EVER... Everywhere you look,
> I'll
> > be there...
>
> Er . . . no, ya really won't.
Maybe not... But I won't just conveniently shut up or vanish like so
many of your ilk wish I would...
>
>
> > But your so called morals and ideals
> > of course prevented you from doing because you refused to address a
market
> > that was right there in front of you... And then you blame everyone else
> for
> > not wanting whatever you were selling? Grow up... If someone isn't
buying
> > your work, it isn't any group or conspiracy, it's YOU...
>
> Have you heard Burned Furs bitching about not being able to sell
anything
> that's not porn? Please direct me to where this was said.
Actually, all the Burned Furs have been bitching about is (a) not being
able to get a job on the first interview with any commercial ad agencies,
and (b) not being able to sell enough of the clean material... So YES, they
have complained along those lines...
>
>
> > Et Tu Burned Furs!
>
> "And You Burned Furs!"? Are you sure you're using that right?
>
*looks over his shoulder at 43 bloody knives in his back*
I think so...
>
> Matt
Next time, try reading the whole thread before answering a post...
>
>
Brian O'connell
lethal situation, hell fucking yeah, unlike Hangdog and his cronies, I DO
hold a bit more value of life in general...
I don't recall hearing many furries laughing their asses off when Deal
Whitley died of sickle cell, saying 'Oh, that's what he gets for being born
black!' I'm sure though that given the opportunity, they prolly would
have...
Yet YOU'VE condoned Hangdog, Random and Stukafoxes' actions...
By letting them into the burned furs, YOU'VE validated their actions...
And I'm sorry, this whole little forum is NOT a game, where everyone's
pretending, this is real life, the people behind those keyboards are REAL,
and so far, all the burned furs have done here, is everything they could to
hurt those very same people...
Why was/am I drawing so slowly and so seldomly?
Why doesn't anyone see me at furry conventions anymore?
Because you've beaten, bashed, belittled, beleagured, betrayed, bullied,
and bastardized me in every single way imaginable... I refuse to attend
furry conventions, let alone any conventions in the near to far future,
because I no longer trust furry fandom as a whole... I refuse to associate
with furries when the people I'm giving free art/sketches, or hanging out
with, or so called 'friends', when the next day they're flaming me here...
The 'It's just the internet' cop-out doesn't work with me... I hold EVERYONE
just as much accountable for their actions here that they do me, except I
hold them to it on both sides of the screen... My art has suffered... My
self esteem (what little there was) has suffered... Self respect? What's
that? That's been nuked that a lonnnnnnnng time ago...
What a wonderful fucking fandom... Where everyone is so determined to
make a scapegoat for their own actions, that they'd destroy everything they
love just to prove it to themselves... Even each other...
If this is "return to the basic, untarnished premise of "furry" fandom",
then you're gonna need a whole lot more Tarn-X..."
Matt Sheridan <mshe...@jenzabar.com> wrote in message
news:7n2uml$se4$1...@crucigera.fysh.org...
Alan \TriGem\ Kennedy
Well, I will probably be there next to you. Unless I get myself shot somewhere
in the process, then I will still drag myself out with ya. NO matter what,
Furry is my Niche in life. :)
Brian O'connell
Look at how much of a sheer livid screaming hell I have to go through to
make any kind of valid point HERE... And count how many of the people
flaming me in response to this are Burned Furs... There's the facts that
speak for themselves... Whenever I have anything important to say, noone
listens... When I have nothing important or intelligent to say, they're ALL
EARS... The Burned Furs is yet another elitist clique of the genre, no
better than the bisexual furries who ran their 'Oh, you're really bi, you
just don't know it' routine, like having anal sex was putting me into some
kind of private club...
If the Burned Furs have the real balls to prove themselves, let it be
HERE... If they can prove me wrong, let it be HERE... So far, all they have
done is prove me right, across the board...
Until then, I refuse to associate with, cooperate with, befriend or
assist any Burned Furs, on the grounds that they may incriminate me... I've
played furry fandom's scapegoat long enough, thank you very much, and at
least for me, I'm going to stick with my guns, not hopping every
organization because 1/10th of the ruling body agrees with me or not...
Forrest
Brian O'connell <furball...@uswest.net> :
>Furthermore, the majority of the vocal members
>of the Burned Furs are self described proponants of censorship...
Here's the member list (note: it's publicly posted on the BF page, so I trust
I'm not annoying anyone by reposting it here -- email addresses removed to
prevent spam):
Charla Trotman; Hangdog; GothTiger; Ben Bruin; Eric Blumrich; Ezuli; David
Tapia; Frank Villarreal; Nate Patrin; DragonZap; Jazaaboo; David Gonterman;
Mark Freid; Jenny Lundin;
Rebecca Kemp; Tory Chang; Jake McDermott; Robert Henney; Ross Sauer; William
"Dripdry" Boles; Douglas Graen; Michelle Solomon; Thomas Zarycki; Brian
"Flix" Witt; Palacecat; Gary L. Robins; Jade; Brian "Snowdog" Kinnison; Kelly
"Inhandra" Dunlap; Manfire; Gibbs "Leo9" Hammond;
Rolaine Smoot; AnubisXy; Daniel Harris; John "Chakal" Burkitt; Heather
"Jessup" Reedy;
Cheyenne Silvermoon; Stormwolf; Silver Vixen; Myra "Joey" Weber; Samantha
"The Hyaena" Nocera;
Sarah "Maui Fox" Troutman; Emilie Bosworth-Clemens.
Who of the above can be positively identified as a proponent of censorship --
that is, one who advocates prohibiting the publication of, and/or deleting,
"objectionable" material?
> Actually, all the Burned Furs have been bitching about is (a) not being
> able to get a job on the first interview with any commercial ad agencies,
> and (b) not being able to sell enough of the clean material...
Who of the above can you identify as artists? as artists who sell their work?
as artists who have interviewed at commercial ad agencies?
Brian O'connell
> Charla Trotman;
GothTiger;
Ben Bruin;
Eric Blumrich;
Mark Freid>
Rebecca Kemp;
Jake McDermott;
Dunno the remainder...
Robert Henney; Ross Sauer; William
> "Dripdry" Boles; Douglas Graen; Michelle Solomon; Thomas Zarycki; Brian;
David
> "Flix" Witt; Palacecat; Gary L. Robins; Jade; Brian "Snowdog" Kinnison;
Kelly
> "Inhandra" Dunlap; Manfire; Gibbs "Leo9" Hammond;
> Rolaine Smoot; AnubisXy; Daniel Harris; John "Chakal" Burkitt; Heather
> "Jessup" Reedy;
> Cheyenne Silvermoon; Stormwolf; Silver Vixen; Myra "Joey" Weber; Samantha
Tapia; Frank Villarreal
> "The Hyaena" Nocera;
> Sarah "Maui Fox" Troutman; Emilie Bosworth-Clemens.Hangdog; DragonZap;
Jazaaboo; David Gonterman;
; Jenny Lundin;; Tory Chang
>
> Who of the above can be positively identified as a proponent of
censorship --
> that is, one who advocates prohibiting the publication of, and/or
deleting,
> "objectionable" material?
Ben Bruin, Hangdog, StukaFox, Nate Patrin (if he is also the pen behind
BlackNo1)
>
> > Actually, all the Burned Furs have been bitching about is (a) not
being
> > able to get a job on the first interview with any commercial ad
agencies,
> > and (b) not being able to sell enough of the clean material...
>
> Who of the above can you identify as artists? as artists who sell their
work?
> as artists who have interviewed at commercial ad agencies?
See above, Charla, Eric Blumrich, Ben Bruin have all openly complained
on the subject...
>
>
>
Paul R. Bennett
Several points I have made in the past, which have been generally ignored.
First, as I have previously stated, "Burned Fur" does have some valid points,
which should be addressed calmly and rationally. And realistically. One point,
which seems to be ignored, is the amount and display of sexually oriented
materials. Now before anyone decides I am advocating censorship, which I do
not, nor do I choose to attack the artists or writers who do such art. I do
suggest that furry might be a whole lot better off if the manner, means, and
local in which such material was addressed was given very serious
consideration. Personally, I think the nature of the art rather out of balance
myself, but that is my own opinion. I won't cross my heart and swear I never,
ever, would buy something that would be defined as erotic, but it is not to my
personal taste in art. I have to find something considerably more to it then
just erotica, but then I do lean toward mundane and boring(some might say).
If anyone thinks I am even remotely "happy" about seeing public links to
activities I do not agree with, they are sadly mistaken. I am, however, a
realist. My response is to do what is within my power to do. Choose what art I
buy, choose who I buy it from. Choose what kind of artwork and stories I do
myself. And most specifically not make that into a public weapon. That is
something that can backfire big time. As for the rest, I hardly condone it, I
rather regard it as on the order of a natural force, so to speak. One can rant
all one wants at the volcano, but when the pyroclastic flow is coming down the
mountside, it doesn't do diddly squat.
Matt Sheridan wrote:
> > Basically, the Burned Furs are painting everyone with a wide brush,
> for
> > whatever reasons or whatever associations, they've damnned everyone, guilt
> > by association, regardless of what they prduce...
>
> Uh . . . no.
"Some" (a handfull perhaps) would be a far more accurate statement. But I must
assuredly would not say all. Or on either side. Unfortunately it is the
individuals who are most intemperate or extreme in their views who catch
people's attention.
> > But the fact is, they're damnning the whole for the acceptance or even
> > tolerance of a few controversial individuals, whether it be spooge artists
> > such as me, or beesteeality/zuphiles, or what have you...
>
> Where are you getting this?
Again, a small number of individuals are presenting problems, which can be said
fairly of both sides.
> > Well, now the
> > shoes on the other foot... I hereby condemn the whole of the Burned Furs
> for
> > their associations with the more controversial elements within THEIR
> > ranks...
To follow that logic, I would have very real reason to condemn "Burned Furs" for
public defamation of character and malicious falsehood. But, this was the
action of an individual, not the entire burned fur community. I do not condemn
the burned furs for the actions of one or two and the same holds true for the
folks who are opposing them. There have been some on both sides who have gone
way too far.
> I think you started out there in the first place, actually. You're
> generalizing us as people who generalize everything else. Ben Bruin might
> "damn" everything Buckyboy's ever done, but I've got no problem with most of
> his work. I don't care who's friends with plushophiles and bestialists.
> Hell, -I'm- friends with a plushophile. I ain't looking to kick Dave
> Hopkins or even Bucky outta the fandom 'cause they get themselves off with
> stuffed animals.
Look out! You WILL get in trouble with some noted "BF's for saying that. I was
subject to some public nastiness for merely suggesting that some matters might
be resolvable through reasonable discussion and people trying to work things
out. Dig time "I wonder who is going to recompense ME for damages."
> > And you know what? I'm not leaving... EVER... Everywhere you look,
> I'll
> > be there...
>
> Er . . . no, ya really won't.
>
> > But your so called morals and ideals
> > of course prevented you from doing because you refused to address a market
> > that was right there in front of you... And then you blame everyone else
> for
> > not wanting whatever you were selling? Grow up... If someone isn't buying
> > your work, it isn't any group or conspiracy, it's YOU...
>
> Have you heard Burned Furs bitching about not being able to sell anything
> that's not porn? Please direct me to where this was said.
>
> > Et Tu Burned Furs!
>
> "And You Burned Furs!"? Are you sure you're using that right?
>
>
> Matt
I would make another, less than pleasent comment at this point. I do not call
my self furry, or even anthro at this time. Anthro art and stories are an
interest, but only one of many. That does not mean that I am not entitled to
either an opinion, or the opportunity to state it in a public forum. The really
sad thing is I am one of the people who does not go overboard for the erotic
stuff. I would like to see much more and my buying habits reflect that, yet
from a practical standpoint, the market share rather appears to lean the other
way. Even sadder, the work I do leans away from the erotic yet actions of some
defenders of the fandom(and some less than happy experiences) have been a major
discouragement towards even bothering. And yes, that is a very definite dig at
a couple of people.
Paul
(Giving serious thought to an Ex-Fur Manifesto)
Hangdog
> > Who of the above can be positively identified as a proponent of
> censorship --
> > that is, one who advocates prohibiting the publication of, and/or
> deleting,
> > "objectionable" material?
>
> Ben Bruin, Hangdog, StukaFox, Nate Patrin (if he is also the pen behind
> BlackNo1)
OK Brian: produce evidence that I have *ever* advocated censorship.
None of my posts whave been X-no-archived: you should have no trouble
using DejaNews to do your research. Here's a hint: in addition to a.f.f.,
check
rec.music.filk, rec.org.sca, rec.arts.sf, sci.space.policy, sci.space.history,
and sci.space.shuttle. Be sure also to check the handles Kermitus of Borg
and Cadfan ap Morgan, as well as my real name, Peter Schorn
This may take you awhile, but you seem to have plenty of time on
your hands.
My more formal writing appears on the Burned Fur web page and
the Fuzzy Logic web page, and I've peen published by MU Press,
the Lyric, and a number of small poetry and historical publications.
Eagerly anticipating the results,
--Hangdog
Hangdog
> <furball...@uswest.net> wrote:
> > It's the same way with commercial art (which frankly is what a lot of
> > furry art for hire is, it ain't selling shaving cream, but it's selling)...
> > And NONE of the Burned Furs have come up to me, or any other erotic artist,
> > and said, "Here's $40, could you do me a watercolor of two elk morphs in
> > classic 7th century Anglo Saxon armor in battle?", or "Just a vixen in a
> > nightgown holding a rose?"... Not a single one...
Actually, Brian, I've commissioned a number of non-erotic works. But I
haven't commissioned any from you, and will not, because it is well known
that you take people's commission money and never deliver the
promised art. You don't return the money, either.
--Hangdog, Burned Fur
BlackNo1
That was like Cartman trying to do a haiku...
BlackNo1
Fabulous!
Matt Sheridan
brush,
> > for
> > > whatever reasons or whatever associations, they've damnned everyone,
> guilt
> > > by association, regardless of what they prduce...
> >
> > Uh . . . no.
>
> the entirity of the Burned Furs site will see this...
Bullshit. -I- don't work that way, and the Mission Statement says nothing
of the sort. That's really all I care about. If you're going to take the
entire site as gospel, of course you'll get all manner of crap. Hell,
there's a message board in there! You'll be taking the opinions of
individuals as the mandate of the group. And for God's sake, don't take
Squee's rant seriously. It ain't our Bible, just a deliberately
inflammatory and over-the-top editorial that served as a catalyst.
> > > But the fact is, they're damnning the whole for the acceptance or
> even
> > > tolerance of a few controversial individuals, whether it be spooge
> artists
> > > such as me, or beesteeality/zuphiles, or what have you...
> >
> > Where are you getting this?
>
> Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the Burned Furs as
a
> whole have been this, ESPECIALLY here in AFF... Read your own material...
> It's spelled out chapter by chapter, to the point you can almost
completely
> repaste the entire manifesto and FAQ page from what I quoted...
A.F.F is a newsgroup. It's -all- words here. And we've repeated time and
time again that spooge isn't even a concern to us. If Ben Bruin wants to
crusade against all erotica -and- be a Burned Fur, I don't give a damn.
Don't take it to mean Burned has anything against mere pornography.
Personally, I don't even have a problem with the lifestylers and
plushophiles themselves, much less their friends. Zoophilia is a far more
questionable area, but even then I've no reason to dislike someone for
merely -associating- with a bestialist.
> I've had more than my share of scapegoating in this genre... I
> know the signs when they show themselves all too well when the holy
rollers
> get a hare up their ass, especially in this genre... And especially
whenever
> *I* dared to question or criticise other furries' actions... So what makes
> the Burned Furs so special?
Better yet, what makes -you- so special? Why do you think you've been
singled out? And, for that matter, why are you surprised that someone would
criticize you in return? Do you expect no one to defend their beliefs? If
you've been getting personal rather than ideological attacks, perhaps it has
something to do with your attitude when you "dared to question or
criticize". Just a theory, not an accusation.
> Furthermore, the majority of the vocal members
> of the Burned Furs are self described proponants of censorship...
> THEY HAVE SAID THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN, OR ARE YOU BLIND???
You must have a strange definition of censorship to believe the Burned Fur
movement is even capable of enacting it. I just want Buckyboy to put his
plush-fucking pics someplace other than a furry archive. I'm not saying he
can't draw 'em. I'm not saying he can't show 'em to people. I'm just
saying I don't want that shit associated with furry.
> Maybe not... But I won't just conveniently shut up or vanish like so
> many of your ilk wish I would...
Ain't -my- ilk wishing you'd disappear. My ilk -likes- debates and
pornography.
> > Have you heard Burned Furs bitching about not being able to sell
> anything
> > that's not porn? Please direct me to where this was said.
>
> Actually, all the Burned Furs have been bitching about is (a) not
being
> able to get a job on the first interview with any commercial ad agencies,
> and (b) not being able to sell enough of the clean material... So YES,
they
> have complained along those lines...
Well, (a) is actually a legitimate concern. As for (b), well, that
problem really -is- a result of the state fo the fandom, but I agree that
it's an artist's own decision not to pander to the masses for the sake of a
buck, and they do sorta lose bitching rights when they make that decision.
I'd still like to see where this is said, though. Doesn't sound like most
BFs' style....
> > > Et Tu Burned Furs!
> >
> > "And You Burned Furs!"? Are you sure you're using that right?
> >
> *looks over his shoulder at 43 bloody knives in his back*
> I think so...
That's what I figured you meant, but I disagree. The line you're making
referance to, "Et tu, Brute?", meant "You too, Brutus?" The subtext being
"You're supposed to be my -friend-, you rat bastard." I don't see how
Burned Fur ever pretended to be your friend, or how they might've stabbed
you in the back.
> Next time, try reading the whole thread before answering a post...
Why? Your post was the -beginning- of the thread. And frankly, I hardly
have time to read -it-.
Matt
Matt Sheridan
trust
> I'm not annoying anyone by reposting it here -- email addresses removed to
> prevent spam):
Well -I'm- annoyed. I oughta be -on- the list. :D I've been Burned since
Charla showed me her Modest Proposal before posting it.
Matt
Matt Sheridan
> lethal situation, hell fucking yeah, unlike Hangdog and his cronies, I DO
> hold a bit more value of life in general...
I don't even know what situation he's talking about. All I can do is
compare the amount of apparent malice and general spazzfulness of his post,
and your reply. If you're serious about the gravity of your situation, and
Hangdog knew how bad it actually is, then I agree, he did step over a line.
But he -did- do it with style.
> Yet YOU'VE condoned Hangdog, Random and Stukafoxes' actions...
I don't even -know- Random and Stukafox.
> By letting them into the burned furs, YOU'VE validated their
actions...
There isn't an admission board for applicants to apply to. There's no
leader to kick people out for misbehaving. And even if there was, I hardly
think such a leader should give a damn if some Burned happen to offend
people. Their personal demeanor has nothing to do with Burned Fur. That's
like saying we -should- shun any fur who dares associate with zoophiles and
such. Hell, it's like saying I validate the actions of zoophiles by being
involved with any part of the fandom! Having some interests or beliefs in
common shouldn't be taken to mean anything more than that.
> And I'm sorry, this whole little forum is NOT a game, where everyone's
> pretending, this is real life, the people behind those keyboards are REAL,
> and so far, all the burned furs have done here, is everything they could
to
> hurt those very same people...
I'm here only to speak the truth. If some Burned Furs have insulted you,
I wouldn't be terribly shocked. I also wouldn't be so sure you weren't
asking for it. But then, hell, I just got here, so I can't claim to know.
> Why was/am I drawing so slowly and so seldomly?
> Why doesn't anyone see me at furry conventions anymore?
> Because you've beaten, bashed, belittled, beleagured, betrayed,
bullied,
> and bastardized me in every single way imaginable...
I'm sorry, -who- has done this to you? 'Cause I'm fairly certain it
wasn't me.
> I refuse to associate
> with furries when the people I'm giving free art/sketches, or hanging out
> with, or so called 'friends', when the next day they're flaming me here...
> The 'It's just the internet' cop-out doesn't work with me... I hold
EVERYONE
> just as much accountable for their actions here that they do me, except I
> hold them to it on both sides of the screen...
Well, I agree with that ethic. But I wonder if you might not be taking
people's comments too hard. I tend to be open about my opinions on people,
and that sometimes means I'll say something less than worshipful even about
folks I like and respect. I'm not stabbing them in the back, because I
never misrepresent my feelings, and I never mean to hurt them.
> My art has suffered... My
> self esteem (what little there was) has suffered... Self respect? What's
> that? That's been nuked that a lonnnnnnnng time ago...
Does this have anything to do with your apparent willingness to draw
anything that'll sell? I thought you were advocating this path....
> What a wonderful fucking fandom... Where everyone is so determined to
> make a scapegoat for their own actions, that they'd destroy everything
they
> love just to prove it to themselves... Even each other...
I'm afraid I really haven't been involved long enough to see this. I do
suspect you're a bit overly sensitive, though. You speak of harsh words as
if they were physical blows....
Matt
Matt Sheridan
> being
> > > able to get a job on the first interview with any commercial ad
> agencies,
> > > and (b) not being able to sell enough of the clean material...
> >
> work?
> > as artists who have interviewed at commercial ad agencies?
>
> See above, Charla, Eric Blumrich, Ben Bruin have all openly complained
> on the subject...
I know Charla hasn't tried to get a job with any ad agency, -or- tried to
sell her work (with the exception of two peices, auctioned on Yerf, which
sold just fine. Eric--currently, anyway--is in no position to complain
about money. If he's cursed furry fandom for its limited tastes--and he
has--he means that, and that alone. Essentially, that the market is rather
pathetic becausetheir interests are so narrow, not because they're not
giving him money.
Matt
Chris Johnson
<furball...@uswest.net> wrote:
> It's the same way with commercial art (which frankly is what a lot of
> furry art for hire is, it ain't selling shaving cream, but it's selling)...
> And NONE of the Burned Furs have come up to me, or any other erotic artist,
> and said, "Here's $40, could you do me a watercolor of two elk morphs in
> classic 7th century Anglo Saxon armor in battle?", or "Just a vixen in a
> for not drawing what they want, would rather not put their money where their
> mouths are, and would rather have people who draw erotica feeling guilty for
> ever picking up a pencil in the first place, than actually promoting change
> and encouraging REAL diversity in art...
I wouldn't dream of giving them that kind of power over me, and wonder
why you do.
I do many innocuous things, like the costume tails. Selling them in
Artist's Alley, I wear a nice shirt. I take pains to exhibit decorum, and
like public places to be civilized and nice.
What I do on my own time is none of the Burned Furs' business. They
don't ask me, I don't tell, and I don't force them to deal with anything
they don't want to face. Frankly, they don't have enough of my trust to
_deserve_ to be privy to my more private moments.
If I do more explicit artworks of some sort (and I've been developing
some rather impressive animated video clips), Burned Furs will have to do
one of two things to even see them: they'd have to convince me they are
adult and buy them, or they'll have to persuade someone else to show 'em
the clips without my consent and awareness. They won't find them on my
website- I treat the web like public space. They'd have to either do the
honorable thing and buy such materials as if they wanted them- and _view_
them, for it's not like the packaging would show off freezeframes- or they
would have to sneak off and get the materials from somebody else without
my consent.
Any complaints about my lowering the moral tone that might result-
would not be worth listening to.
And if I am complying with my own moral compass- which is moderately
more Victorian than most furs or artists- then I have no reason to buy
into the shame from anyone else, or to behave like I am being persecuted.
That's no matter how extreme the 'private stock' artworks, pictures, video
clips are. If I've satisfied my own moral guidelines, I don't care who
bitches.
Seeing as I haven't even produced many erotic works, that they lapsed
into obscurity with a few appreciative remarks from Tygger Graf (who liked
my fur-drawing technique in Photoshop), and since the ones in development
are strongly prone to being CD-Rom based Quicktime movies which won't be
anywhere on my website (any more than I needed to advertise the tails on
my website to sell those)- I refuse to feel guilty.
The last time I interacted with Hangdog in any way, he'd read a post of
mine and professed himself very moved and impressed. He's free to recant
and call me names now that he knows I'm going to produce erotica- or to
lionize me as a great example of decorum and tact- or whatever reaction he
feels like coming up with.
He's him, and I'm me, and I owe nothing to him. I owe it to myself to
live up to my standards- and _I_ set those, not him. Similarly, I wouldn't
dream of expecting him to use my standards. If they bug me enough, I'll
simply avoid him. So far, I haven't needed to.
I don't know why you two can't do the same, but that's your privilege.
Jinx_tigr
(aka Chris Johnson)
Alan \TriGem\ Kennedy
Matt Sheridan wrote:
> Hell, it's like saying I validate the actions of zoophiles by being
> involved with any part of the fandom! Having some interests or beliefs in
> common shouldn't be taken to mean anything more than that.
Please refrain from using the whole word. use the Z-element, or Zuphiles, or
whoever it was pointed that out in a post, or something of the like.
Don't flame me, just trying to be helpful here, as I don't think anyone wants
anymore un-due attention drawn here.
>
> Matt
Alan \TriGem\ Kennedy
> Bullshit. -I- don't work that way, and the Mission Statement says nothing
> of the sort. That's really all I care about. If you're going to take the
> entire site as gospel, of course you'll get all manner of crap. Hell,
> there's a message board in there! You'll be taking the opinions of
> individuals as the mandate of the group. And for God's sake, don't take
> Squee's rant seriously. It ain't our Bible, just a deliberately
> inflammatory and over-the-top editorial that served as a catalyst.
I am only sticking my nose into you and BO'connels fight here because there are
some components of hte BF's that seem to, or have taken the Manifesto as
gospel. Most it seems have retracted from that.
*shrug*
Then again, what do I know.
> A.F.F is a newsgroup. It's -all- words here. And we've repeated time and
> time again that spooge isn't even a concern to us. If Ben Bruin wants to
> crusade against all erotica -and- be a Burned Fur, I don't give a damn. Don't
> take it to mean Burned has anything against mere pornography. Personally, I
> don't even have a problem with the lifestylers and plushophiles themselves,
> much less their friends. Zoophilia is a far mor questionable area, but even
> then I've no reason to dislike someone for merely -associating- with a
> bestialist.
Please refrain from using whole word. Keep the count low. Saves us all trouble
later.
Vixy
>Brian O'connell wrote:
>> <snip>
> <snipola>
Well I can *definately* see the influence of Stukafox on
the burned furs already. If somneone speaks out against their
ideals and "truths", turn it into a personal attack against them.
Hmmmmm... maybe more Randomish... untill they start flaming *both*
sides of a debate. I really feel sorry for those BFs who joined
thinking they were supporting something that would do *good* in
Furry Fandom.
=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=====
Victry 'love long and perspire; Vixy' Hyzenthlay
Technofox and personal Vixen. "YIP!"
Furry Fan with a Furry Lifestyle... AND a life! ;>
_____________________
/ \ _
)""""\___ |- - - - - - - - - - - -| |_\____
)----| |\-| Vivacious Vixen II |-/| | |\
)____|___|=============================| """|_)
`----' \|http://members.Xoom.com/Vixy |/"""""
"""|"""""""/"""""\"""""""|"""
Victry{no-spam}@- `=++++=" "=++++=' -@{remove}juno;com
Please post any response to this newsgroup. Thanks.
DawnWolf
> Yup, my bad, however, many of the BF's have threatened to play narc as
>it is, so soon it may be prosecution rather than persecution either way... I
>still wouldn't be surprised if it was one of them that ratted on CF10...
Aha. May I throw my Euro 0.02 in: Persecute, fine. Whatever. :o) Now
... CF10 ... there is precisely one group of people to blame for what
happened, and that is con staff. They weren't prepared. When I have a
large convention with adult material, I _check_ that beforehand with
the location it's at, in writing. And the same for the Nurple event,
if it's gonna get loud, then there has to be a piece of paper stating
"on the xth from here to there we will have a party, and it will be
around N decibel".
In my opinion, the staff didn't do their homework. OK, it's a fan
event, so such things happen. No big deal. Wiser next time, eh? But to
be "caught out" like that by one anonymous email ... no, you really
cannot blame the one writing the email for what happened. He is an
asshole, agreed, but _he_ didn't plan a con with adult material
without getting a written statement from hotel management.
And now, feel free to flame-pounce me ;-/
DawnWolf
BlackNo1
>pretending, this is real life, the people behind those keyboards are REAL,
>and so far, all the burned furs have done here, is everything they could to
>hurt those very same people...
This is not real.
BlackNo1
>Tapia; Frank Villarreal; Nate Patrin; DragonZap; Jazaaboo; David Gonterman;
>Mark Freid; Jenny Lundin;
>"Dripdry" Boles; Douglas Graen; Michelle Solomon; Thomas Zarycki; Brian
>"Inhandra" Dunlap; Manfire; Gibbs "Leo9" Hammond;
>Rolaine Smoot; AnubisXy; Daniel Harris; John "Chakal" Burkitt; Heather
>"Jessup" Reedy;
>Cheyenne Silvermoon; Stormwolf; Silver Vixen; Myra "Joey" Weber; Samantha
>Sarah "Maui Fox" Troutman; Emilie Bosworth-Clemens.
Ahem... That's the old list. Emi, JJ, SJ, mouse and Stuka aren't in that..
BlackNo1
>BlackNo1)
No, he's not, and he's not promoting censorship.
Hangdog
> <snip>
>
> That was like Cartman trying to do a haiku...
"All alone one night
Bright lights in the sky--
Not the anal probe!!"
"Who is my father?
Is it Chef or Barberry?
My mom's a crack ho."
"Crunchy salty snacks
They stain your fingers orange--
I WANT CHEEZY POOFS!"
Forrest
Mathue <mat...@my-deja.com> wrote :
> > And for God's sake, don't take
> > Squee's rant seriously. It ain't our Bible, just a deliberately
> > inflammatory and over-the-top editorial that served as a catalyst.
>
> Using text that inherently causes a reaction needs to be carefully
> weighed to make sure that reaction bears a positive outcome. A rant is
> useless if all it causes is to make people dig in their heels.
Manifesto II still standing by:
http://members.xoom.com/squirreltech
Dr. Cat
: I've given the promise to be the last man standing in furry fandom,
: so you wish. The day I'll leave furry fandom... Will be the day I'm
: dead.
Geez, and some people say the furry lifestylers are the ones taking this
hobby waaaaaay too seriously.
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
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: I still say it's BOTH sides of most of these arguments that
are taking the hobby too seriously. Improving the reputation of your
hobby is nice, whenever that's doable. But this whole "We MUST improve
the reputation, for it will be so so terrible if we fail to" attitude is
just plain loony, goofy, wacky, silly, and nutso if ya ask me.)
(Disclaimer disclaimer: Actually, nobody DID ask me. So forget I said
anything, ok? No, really!)
Dr. Cat
: And for God's sake, don't take Squee's rant seriously. It ain't our
: served as a catalyst.
Did you ever think of maybe putting a little explanatory introductory
text in the beginning of that rant, like "Please don't take this rant as
a statement of our movement's positions on issues, it ain't our bible,
just a deliberately inflammatory and over-the-top editorial that served
as a catlyst"? (Or however you want to phrase it...)
If you leave it as-is, the only "explanation" of what it is and where it
fits into your movement is "um, this is a bunch of words and they're on
our web page and the title is 'Manifesto'". In that situation you have
to assume that some portion of our readers won't take it seriously, and
some portion will take it seriously.
If it matters to you what people think you meant by putting it there, you
could come right out and TELL them. They ain't mind readers, ya know.
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
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: There was something else down here before, but I changed it
to this. Muahahahaha!)
Farlo
>
> BlackNo1 (s...@BOYCOTTSPAMsaunalahti.fi) wrote:
> : I've given the promise to be the last man standing in furry fandom,
> : so you wish. The day I'll leave furry fandom... Will be the day I'm
> : dead.
>
> Geez, and some people say the furry lifestylers are the ones taking this
> hobby waaaaaay too seriously.
Hmm, now I'm practically obligated to make a suitably pompous reply ...
"SJL, you FIEND! Your petty mewling simpering has gone on long, far too
long, for my tastes! WE TRUE FANS (*uh, how's that for pompous?*) ... as
I was saying WE TRUE FANS despise your pettiness and will see you GONE
from the fandom. Yea, verily, you will be BANISHED to the darkest corner
of any con you might attend, forbidden to come into the light and
sneered at by every passing fur. The Dunce cap is yours, and I'll see
that you wear it."
... not my best, but it'll do.
Farlo
PS
If SJL ever threw down a gauntlet, I *wouldn't* pick it up, y'know.
I don't like touching icky things. =P
Matt Sheridan
> so you wish. The day I'll leave furry fandom... Will be the day I'm
> dead.
Okay, I think it's safe to say BlackNo1 -ain't- Nate Patrin. Nate was
halfway to quitting altogther, last I heard. (And, hell, he just mighta
done exactly that. Haven't heard from him in a while.)
Matt
Matt Sheridan
or
> whoever it was pointed that out in a post, or something of the like.
I'd noticed folks doing that, but I've yet to comprehend the problem with
the trouble the whole word attracts. I don't see piles of spam for
www.animalsex.com, here. Of course, maybe it's luring folks into the fandom
who really just like to get their freak on in the barnyard and don't give a
damn about cartoon critters and such. <shrug> Anyway, I guess I'll just say
"dogfuckers" from now on. :D
Matt
Matt Sheridan
> Bright lights in the sky--
> Not the anal probe!!"
>
> "Who is my father?
> Is it Chef or Barberry?
> My mom's a crack ho."
>
> "Crunchy salty snacks
> They stain your fingers orange--
> I WANT CHEEZY POOFS!"
LOL! Jeezis, Hangdog. :D Nothing brings a smile to my face like poetry
about crack hos and anal probes (which, appropriately, is what I majored in
at college).
Matt
Matt Sheridan
> > Squee's rant seriously. It ain't our Bible, just a deliberately
> > inflammatory and over-the-top editorial that served as a catalyst.
>
there are
> some components of hte BF's that seem to, or have taken the Manifesto as
> gospel. Most it seems have retracted from that.
Yeah, that thing's been trouble for us for a while. It was a great way to
get the point across, but it's not something that anybody oughta look to for
policy or general attitude. It's really being featured wrong on the BF
page, which is actually something BF has discussed, and Charla has agreed
with. But Ezuli has only just recently taken over the site (it still sez
Lancid's running it, even), so planned changes ain't done yet.
Matt
Matt Sheridan
> the burned furs already. If somneone speaks out against their
> ideals and "truths", turn it into a personal attack against them.
> Hmmmmm... maybe more Randomish... untill they start flaming *both*
> sides of a debate. I really feel sorry for those BFs who joined
> thinking they were supporting something that would do *good* in
> Furry Fandom.
Jesus, seriously? I gotta spend more time on the BF boards, if that's the
state they're in. Personal attacks are -not- the way to accomplish
anything. And I've been hearing way too much about this Stukafox guy. If
he's acting like an asshole, I don't care who's side he's on; somebody needs
to set his ass straight. (Of course, judging from the post TriGem said was
his, the guy seems like a troll, anyway....)
Matt
S.J.Laitila
>long, for my tastes! WE TRUE FANS (*uh, how's that for pompous?*) ... as
>I was saying WE TRUE FANS despise your pettiness and will see you GONE
>from the fandom. Yea, verily, you will be BANISHED to the darkest corner
>of any con you might attend, forbidden to come into the light and
>sneered at by every passing fur. The Dunce cap is yours, and I'll see
>that you wear it."
Naaaw... I'll just hang out with Blumrich.
>PS
>If SJL ever threw down a gauntlet, I *wouldn't* pick it up, y'know.
>I don't like touching icky things. =P
Well... Actually I did... BUT I can't help it, that my hands sweat!
Matt Sheridan
> : Bible, just a deliberately inflammatory and over-the-top editorial that
> : served as a catalyst.
>
> text in the beginning of that rant, like "Please don't take this rant as
> a statement of our movement's positions on issues, it ain't our bible,
Yes, actually. In fact, we're doing just that. It was decided at AC.
(Yes, it's been a while. 'Zuli's a busy lemur.)
> If you leave it as-is, the only "explanation" of what it is and where it
> fits into your movement is "um, this is a bunch of words and they're on
> our web page and the title is 'Manifesto'". In that situation you have
> to assume that some portion of our readers won't take it seriously, and
> some portion will take it seriously.
Exactly. Manifesto is very much the wrong word, there.
Matt
Matt Sheridan
> that claim alignment or people posting here that there is difficulty
> with displaying a solid front. Basically it comes down to too many cooks
> spoil the pot. Too many voices, often with greatly varying opinions add
> confusion to the mix. If there is to be any widespread legitimacy given
> to the BF there MUST be a united, congealed statement that everyone goes
> by. What do you expect to happen when five or ten voices say different
> things but are part of a _unified_ group? a.f.f. isn't any different
> than the real world, the general public does the same things as seen
> here. The large part of people here are North American's who socially
> are _very_ reactive. NO movement can succeed unless that dynamic is
> understood.
Exactly what I've been saying for quite a while, I'm afraid. But how
to -achieve- unity is the question. Kick out and deny membership to those
who hold different, more extreme beliefs in addition to their agreement with
BF's stated goals? We don't really work that way. Besides, history does
suggest that you're better with one big rebel army than a whole mess of
warring splinter groups. :) Try to convince them to drop or quite down
about their extremist views? Good luck convincing extremists--especially
religiously-motivated ones--of anything.
I think our best hope is to make sure people know a bit more fully what
we're really like, both for PR and membership purposes. Maybe Ben Bruin
wouldn't have joined, if we made it a bit more clear we weren't a bunch of
bunch of Christan anti-porn crusaders.
> > And for God's sake, don't take
> > Squee's rant seriously. It ain't our Bible, just a deliberately
> > inflammatory and over-the-top editorial that served as a catalyst.
>
> Then perhaps it needs to be put in that perspective FOR people.
> Using text that inherently causes a reaction needs to be carefully
> weighed to make sure that reaction bears a positive outcome. A rant is
> useless if all it causes is to make people dig in their heels.
This is in the works, actually. We've just gotta get new web mistress
Ezuli to make the changes. The damn thing really should never have been
referred to as a "Manifesto", especially not the first part, the initial "I
remember when being a pervert was a bad thing" post that came before the
"Modest Proposal".
> Images are the same way.
Well, we've got this version of the page, if you prefer:
http://www2.crosswinds.net/~burnedfur/ :D
> Honestly do you think it's a positive way for Eric to air his
> displeasure with Plushophiles to make images of them with guns to their
> heads (Even if it's actually Eric's face)?
Personally, I thought it was freakin hilarious. :) But that's beside the
point. Most of the civilized world just -might- have a problem with
Blumrich's sense of humor. The thing is, though, it's -his- sense of humor,
with no real connection to Burned Fur. I wouldn't want Burned to go
expecting Disney-level inoffensiveness from it's members. Then we
actually -would- be as bad as some folks say.
> > A.F.F is a newsgroup. It's -all- words here. And we've repeated
> time and
> > time again that spooge isn't even a concern to us. If Ben Bruin wants
> to
> > crusade against all erotica -and- be a Burned Fur, I don't give a
> damn.
>
> Then the perception will persist.
I'm afraid it's a necessary evil. We can't go kicking people out just to
win the support of idiots who don't understand the difference between
individuals and groups. Much like our policy regarding the fringe elements
of furry fandom altogether, I'd just like Ben to keep his extremist opinions
disconnected from his Burned support.
> As I've said already, for the Burned Furs to alleviate the image
> problem a unified mouthpiece is needed. Peter Schorn has tried this with
> varied success.
You might have something, there. We're pretty much egalitarian, but maybe
it'd be good to have a nice, sane, intelligent individual to act as an
official representative.
Matt
Matt Sheridan
brush,
> > for
> > > whatever reasons or whatever associations, they've damnned everyone,
guilt
> > > by association, regardless of what they prduce...
> >
> > Uh . . . no.
>
must
> assuredly would not say all. Or on either side. Unfortunately it is the
> individuals who are most intemperate or extreme in their views who catch
> people's attention.
That's truth. Brian just needs to put away his paint roller before he can
start talking about anybody's "wide brush".
> > Hell, -I'm- friends with a plushophile. I ain't looking to kick Dave
> > Hopkins or even Bucky outta the fandom 'cause they get themselves off
with
> > stuffed animals.
>
> Look out! You WILL get in trouble with some noted "BF's for saying that.
Fine by me. I'd love to know exactly who it is who has a problem with
that.
Matt
Hangdog
Matt--where the HELL can one major in crack hos and anal probes?! San Francisco
State?!?!
--Hangdog, who now has a new and disturbing perspective on the phrase "Giving
it the old college try!"
Farlo
>
> I think our best hope is to make sure people know a bit more fully what
> we're really like, both for PR and membership purposes.
Oh, good idea! Polish off the last of your potential support base.
> > Honestly do you think it's a positive way for Eric to air his
> > displeasure with Plushophiles to make images of them with guns to their
> > heads?
>
> Personally, I thought it was freakin hilarious. :) But that's beside the
> point. Most of the civilized world just -might- have a problem with
> Blumrich's sense of humor.
It is sick. Guns aren't funny. Executions are NOT FUNNY.
Didn't think that this needed to be said.
Gross.
Farlo
Alan \TriGem\ Kennedy
> Anyway, I guess I'll just say "dogfuckers" from now on. :D
>
> Matt
*sniggers* its a start ;)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
88888888\/--\/ moc.liamtoh@megirt \/--\/ Reverse to Get email.88888888
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan \\TriGem\\ Kennedy ICQ #8781052 www.furnation.com/trigem
FCWcs2amr A+ C+ D+ H+ M++ P+ R+++ T+ W Z Sm++ RLAT a23 cdn++++ d++ e+ f+ h iwf++
j++ p sm+
http://www.vulpine.pp.se/cgi-bin/furcode Decode My Code.
Alan \TriGem\ Kennedy
> Jesus, seriously? I gotta spend more time on the BF boards, if that's the
> state they're in. Personal attacks are -not- the way to accomplish
> anything. And I've been hearing way too much about this Stukafox guy. If
> he's acting like an asshole, I don't care who's side he's on; somebody needs
> to set his ass straight. (Of course, judging from the post TriGem said was
> his, the guy seems like a troll, anyway....)
>
> Matt
Well, if he is up on his soapbox over on the BF boards, it is better then making
a rukus here. Most people find his/her methods harsh and irrational, and
mostly unnecessary. I mean, there is so much you can do with calling someone a
fucker in the nicest terms and have them think the world of you. He is trying
to feed furs vinegar and trying to pass it off as sugar water or something.
That is what it appears to me. Then again, some say I have not clue anyways.
Oh well.
Alan \TriGem\ Kennedy
> Yeah, that thing's been trouble for us for a while. It was a great way to
> get the point across, but it's not something that anybody oughta look to for
> policy or general attitude. It's really being featured wrong on the BF
> page, which is actually something BF has discussed, and Charla has agreed
> with. But Ezuli has only just recently taken over the site (it still sez
> Lancid's running it, even), so planned changes ain't done yet.
>
> Matt
As a QUITE vocal anti-bf activist for a while, the thing that did not sell me on
the whole ideal of the BF's was the manifesto from the start.
I got a chance to talk to Eric (once again I bring this up) and realized that
him and I shared ALOT of the same ideals, as well as AnubisXY (whereever he is
these days) and even some of the others. Just the vocal and harsh words that
were shead is what turned me off from the start. Otherwise I woudl have asked
to joined, as I felt obligated to help polish up the fandoms image, not get rid
of the element that make it up.
I mean heck, Gold, Silver, and all the precious metals are not 100% pure, they
all have their impurities, but without those impurites, they can not be called
prescious metals.
I wish folks would look at it like that.
Alan \TriGem\ Kennedy
> Exactly what I've been saying for quite a while, I'm afraid. But how
> to -achieve- unity is the question. Kick out and deny membership to those who
> hold different, more extreme beliefs in addition to their agreement with BF's
> stated goals? We don't really work that way. Besides, history does suggest
> that you're better with one big rebel army than a whole mess of warring
> splinter groups. :) Try to convince them to drop or quite down about their
> extremist views? Good luck convincing extremists--especially
> religiously-motivated ones--of anything.
Anyone remember Waco?
> I think our best hope is to make sure people know a bit more fully what
> we're really like, both for PR and membership purposes. Maybe Ben Bruin
> wouldn't have joined, if we made it a bit more clear we weren't a bunch of
> bunch of Christan anti-porn crusaders.
People like Ben, Random, and Stuka seem to be drawn here because they can find
ways to take out personal grudges, or straws out of the group if they can, and
feel much more macho for doing so, when infact they have done nothing but shout
really loud.
> This is in the works, actually. We've just gotta get new web mistress
> Ezuli to make the changes. The damn thing really should never have been
> referred to as a "Manifesto", especially not the first part, the initial "I
> remember when being a pervert was a bad thing" post that came before the
> "Modest Proposal".
Unfourutnetly, as I think most can agree, the 'first impression' of the
manifesto has left a lasting image. Every image can be polished, and who knows,
in time the BF's first impressions might be forgotten, or wiped away with
something fancier, shinier, and a newer model.
> > Images are the same way.
>
> Well, we've got this version of the page, if you prefer:
>
> http://www2.crosswinds.net/~burnedfur/ :D
>
>
> Personally, I thought it was freakin hilarious. :) But that's beside the
> point. Most of the civilized world just -might- have a problem with
> Blumrich's sense of humor. The thing is, though, it's -his- sense of humor,
> with no real connection to Burned Fur. I wouldn't want Burned to go expecting
> Disney-level inoffensiveness from it's members. Then we
> actually -would- be as bad as some folks say.
Humor, beauty, art is always in the eye of the beholder. Old saying, but is
proof positive here then it has ever possibly been.
> I'm afraid it's a necessary evil. We can't go kicking people out just to
> win the support of idiots who don't understand the difference between
> individuals and groups. Much like our policy regarding the fringe elements of
> furry fandom altogether, I'd just like Ben to keep his extremist opinions
> disconnected from his Burned support.
*nods* the way that the BFs are dealign with the extremist by making them
dissasociate that with the BF's is how the z's p's and whatever element that you
dislike should be handled. Try to get them to dissacociate the 'element' that
makes them the outcast. They will not refut it entirely, but it could be better
for them, and the fandom if they would do so. I am a z element, but I don't go
associating it with the fandom, it is an entirely different thing from the
fandom, as well as my beliefs against religion, and the churches and the
government. I may bitch about them in furry, but I don't associate themwith
furry.
> You might have something, there. We're pretty much egalitarian, but maybe
> it'd be good to have a nice, sane, intelligent individual to act as an
> official representative.
>
> Matt
I have noticed that the BF"s have taken a much calmer, and tamer outlook
recently. I have also noticed ALOT of them have realized (from the recent
posts) that calmly talking things out has seems to get alot of progress down in
writting.
Okay.. this ends this response. My hand hurts, and me out of Tylenol :P
Alan \TriGem\ Kennedy
> It is sick. Guns aren't funny. Executions are NOT FUNNY. Didn't think that this
> needed to be said.
>
> Gross.
>
> Farlo
Guns are funny. When you start watching those pesky 2litre bottles go dancing
with the amor piercing rounds fly through them. Wath a .22 Magnum hollow point
bounce off a dead power supply with a peircing whang. Its really funny to be
firing of a 7round shotgun in succession with a friend, then the person a few
places down at a shooting range unload with a dinky 22. ;)
Maybe its just a gun thing.
Also, the only thing gross is when you blat a piece of fruit, or somethign with
substance that you were using for target practice and a stray piece flys back and
blaps yoU!
Okay.. maybe I am just weird. I used to hate guns, but I have a blast with them
now. (pun, inteneded.)
Plonq
news:7n7suf$kc0$1...@crucigera.fysh.org...
[snip]
> damn about cartoon critters and such. <shrug> Anyway, I guess I'll just
say
> "dogfuckers" from now on. :D
Ah, the joys of regional dialects! Believe it or not the term "dogfucker"
has a mundane usage up here referring (derisively) to a lazy person.
Example: "Look at those dogfuckers just standing around out there. What do
they think we're paying them for?"
I discovered IRC one night - to my chagrin - that this meaning is not
universally applied. In any event, tossing out the word was good for a few
moments of pregnant silence on the channel while I figured out that the
other people there weren't using the same definition for it that I was.
Nobody in my office would bat an eye if one said, "The computers went down
around noon on Saturday so we just fucked the dog until the end of the
shift." I mean, no one in my office would be surprised to hear that the
computers were down for the whole afternoon.
* Plonq
S.J.Laitila
>with the amor piercing rounds fly through them. Wath a .22 Magnum hollow point
>bounce off a dead power supply with a peircing whang. Its really funny to be
>firing of a 7round shotgun in succession with a friend, then the person a few
>places down at a shooting range unload with a dinky 22. ;)
Well... Me, ands my friends like to play Cyberpunk... I killed 8 people in
4 hours... (not including the 2 executed guys) Pretty nifty, huh?
Alan \TriGem\ Kennedy
>
> Well... Me, ands my friends like to play Cyberpunk... I killed 8 people in
> 4 hours... (not including the 2 executed guys) Pretty nifty, huh?
*smirks*
If you say so. ;)
Wanderer
(snip)
>
>Hmm, now I'm practically obligated to make a suitably pompous reply ...
>
>"SJL, you FIEND! Your petty mewling simpering has gone on long, far too
>long, for my tastes! WE TRUE FANS (*uh, how's that for pompous?*) ... as
>I was saying WE TRUE FANS despise your pettiness and will see you GONE
>from the fandom. Yea, verily, you will be BANISHED to the darkest corner
>of any con you might attend, forbidden to come into the light and
>sneered at by every passing fur. The Dunce cap is yours, and I'll see
>that you wear it."
>
(snip)
Not bad, but you lose points for a few errors in slam-structure:
Never use "will" when attempting Grand Pomposity. "Shall" is more
effective, especially in maintaining the lord-from-on-high demeanor without
cracking up.:)
Always place a comma between "petty" and "mewling". Good punctuation helps
any speech ... :>
Use "may" instead of "might". It adds to the pseudo-medieval format.:)
Avoid the phrase, "come into the light" ... everyone connects it with
near-death experiences. Also, avoid prepositions ... "forbidden entrance"
sounds much more impressive than "forbidden to come in".:)
On the whole, a B+ ... it's no Moses, but it's no Black Shield of Falworth,
either.:>
Yours with an A in Applied Pomposity,
(I would've made A+ if they'd allowed British accents.;)
The howling with laughter,
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!
Dr. Cat
: *nods* the way that the BFs are dealign with the extremist by making them
: dissasociate that with the BF's is how the z's p's and whatever element
: that you dislike should be handled. Try to get them to dissacociate
: the 'element' that makes them the outcast.
You know, there is an interesting parallel there. The BF goal of
keeping the general public from assuming a group (furry fandom) is
all about the stuff a few radical fringe members (exhibitionist perverts
and sickos) go around talking about... This is mirrored by the need to
keep folks from assuming a group (Burned Furs) is all about the stuff a
few radical fringe members (anti-gay anti-porn zealots and determined
flaming ranters) go around saying.
It seems to me that their internal image problem should be a more
manageable one, and therefore might make a good "test case" for
perfecting approaches to dealing with that type of issue in the
larger arena. After all, the BFs are a smaller group than the whole
fandom, the number of people forming opinions of them that they have
to deal with is smaller, and the number of radical fringe members
doing things they might want to "defuse" is smaller.
I'd say the BFs would do well to prove to themselves that they can
effectively manage reputation and PR issues caused by misbehaving
minorities by cleaning their own ranks first. Then they could apply
those same approaches to the larger problem of the whole fandom's
reptuation. On the other hand, if they find they can't manage to
clean up their own reputation using the methods they choose, then
that's a sign that they need to consider rethinking their approach
and finding a more effective solution.
In either case there's lessons learned and experience gained that could
probably be well applied to their long term goals. Plus if they succeed,
then having a better reputation would probably enable them to recruit
more members. I'm sure their reputation problems have kept away at
least a few potential supporters.
What I can't buy is this reaction some (though not all) show to being
misunderstood. "If someone didn't understand such-and-such, I blame the
reader for not being smart enough or digging deeper into the issue enough
to know better, rather than blaming the writer". My attitude is, a
decently skilled writer who's currently being understood by 80% of folks
and misunderstood by 20% is someone who could probably put some extra
time, effort, and elbow grease into rewriting and editing their work, and
get understood by 95% and misunderstood by 5%. Or maybe do even better.
I have no sympathy for a writer who's going to label 20% of their
audience "Too stupid to be worth my time and effort to speak more clearly
to".
I do think the movement needs to learn that you don't counter a
misconception just by having said what you're about somewhere,
but that you need to say loudly and repeatedly "We are not about
THIS" if some annoying misconception springs up. Or even embracing
the opposite view, where appropriate. I know if I were a BF I would
be tempted to go around following up a lot of Ben Bruin's posts about how
all sexual imagery of any kind is bad for you with my own personal
disclaimer that "Ben Bruin is stating his own personal opinion and not
that of the Burned Fur movement. In fact many of us BFs draw erotic
imagery and feel that it can be artistically expressive and beautiful,
as long as it's done tastefully and not displayed in inappropriate ways
or places."
I'd also say, if I were going to be starting some movement that I thought
was likely to be mistaken as having (for example) an anti-gay stance...
Or one that already HAD been accused of same... I wouldn't "defuse" that
by having a web page that just said "We are against A and B" and didn't
say we are against gays. AND I wouldn't defuse it by saying "We are
against A and B, but we're not against gays so don't think we are."
I would say something like "We are against A and B. On the subject of
homosexuality, however, we think that's a perfectly normal way for a
person to be, and we think that homosexuals deserve to be treated with
the same dignity and respect as any other human being, and should have
the same rights. So we're definitely not against gays. Just A and B. :X)"
If you REALLY want people to think you're not against gays, THAT is how
you defuse it. If the kindest you're willing to be to a group people are
accusing you of opposing is to "damn them with faint praise"... Like "We
don't hate you, really..." Then suspicions will linger, at least amongst
the most paranoid, annoying, and sometimes loud folks.
And you KNOW we have some paranoid, annoying and often loud types here!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
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: I have an ulterior motive in suggesting the BFs should use
the task of cleaning up their own reputation as a "test case" for
cleaning up the fandom's reputation. Which is that MY pathetic little
goal is "less flaming on alt.fan.furry" and I think maybe if they cleaned
their own house first that very cleaning would reduce the flameage here
at least a little. Whether they then proceed to make huge improvements
in the fandom's reptuation or not. So they will probably ignore my
advice totally, since I disagree with them and stuff and some of them
hate to take ANY advice from someone that disagrees with them. I tried
once to point out the flawed logic in their "articles" thing where it
says "I hereby disprove the claim that Burned Furs are doing such-and-such
by showing evidence that other people did such-and-such first". That
reasoning only works if such-and-such is something that can only be done
once, or that nobody else can do other than the first person/people to do
it. Which wasn't the case in the situation being written about, it was
clearly something that somebody could come along and do ALSO even
after someone else had done it first. But for my troubles all I got was
told I was clearly wrong without being told WHY my reasoning was wrong,
called "obviously delusional", and given a ridiculous and ineffectual
threat to get me to stop sending email, where a polite request would have
gotten me to stop just as effectively. I ask you, what kind of incentive
do I have to keep offering further advice? I'm frankly amazed that
they're actually seriously considering addressing their glaringly huge and
awful "angry rant on the web page" problem in even a minor way, after so
many months of blowing off and rudely rejecting any suggestions to fix
that problem that anyone made here. Maybe what they needed was to huddle
somewhere like AC or in private email, and after a reasonable time had
past with none of their "opponents" suggesting it, so they could feel
like they were doing it on their own initiative rather than "giving in"
and making some change desired by people they don't like. Well whatever,
I don't care what their reasons are, I'll just be happy to see any
improvement in their presentation of the group that moves them further
away from giving the impression of "Hi, we're the 'mock with maximum
cruelty' movement!")
(Disclaimer disclaimer: Oh, but since they will obviously reject my
"clean your own house first for practice and as a test case" suggestion,
solely because it comes from me, I will fix that now with cruel taunting
that will leave them unable to resist doing what I want. *clears throat*
"Oh yeah? Well I bet you COULDN'T fix your OWN reputation problem with
your OWN fringe even if you wanted to! And why would any of us believe
you could fix our bigger reptuation issues if you can't even fix your
own smaller ones? I bet you're to CHICKEN to even try because it'll just
prove you can't do it! Nyah nyah nyah nyah boo boo! I DOUBLE DOG DARE
you to even try! So there!")
(Disclaimer disclaimer disclaimer: Well that will NEVER work. But hey,
I tried, and it's cheaper for you to watch this than gettin' into a
movie, and maybe you had a few laughs. :X)
Dr. Cat
: > It is sick. Guns aren't funny. Executions are NOT FUNNY. Didn't think
: > that this needed to be said.
: Guns are funny. When you start watching those pesky 2litre bottles go
: dancing with the amor piercing rounds fly through them.
I hereby conclude that different people have very different perspectives
on things in life. I had no idea before that this was so. I think this
explains why people get so upset and confused when they try to talk and
argue with each other! Wow!
Of course I have a third and still different perspective on this matter,
so I can sit back and smirk smugly, secure in the knowledge that the two
of them are both WRONG WRONG WRONG!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
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: Of course either of them could look towards me and the other
guy and think "Those two are wrong" with just as much smug certainty. Well
maybe not, I am probably smugger. It's my cross to bear I suppose. :X)
(Bonus bullshit: What my actual third perspective on the issue is, is
that I make a distinction between violence in art that's intended to
excite or to amuse, vs. violence that's intended to either express the
author's genuine hatred of an individual or group, or to stir up such
hatred in others, or both. That I don't find entertaining the way I
might find drawings (or movies or whatever) of violence or guns that
were made by an artist who wasn't angry.)
(Bullshit disclaimer: Of course this is complicated by the fact that an
angry artist's work might be seen by someone who thought the artist
wasn't angry and was just making a joke, and they feel that it's a funny
joke too and enjoy it. Or a calm joking artist's work might be seen by
someone who feels the image conjures up feelings of opression and anger
that the artist didn't happen to intend, and they feel upset about
viewing it for that reason. And further, it might be that the artist's
true intentions for a piece haven't been stated and the artist doesn't
make themself available for people to ask and nobody knows the artist
well enough to even make a reasonable GUESS what the artist intended to
accomplish or express and why. So it's a very dodgy and imperfect way to
try to draw the line between "just a joke/fun action movie/exciting
videogame" and "this is hateful and hurtful and icky and bad". On the
other hand, I'd rather have an imperfect way of guessing where to draw
that line rather than say ALL art is on one side of the line or all art
is on the other! That would be even worse. :X)
Dr. Cat
: I'd noticed folks doing that, but I've yet to comprehend the problem with
That isn't the point. It's more about people that might read and get a
poor impression, people that would never post anything (like the vast
majority of people who read Usenet).
: Of course, maybe it's luring folks into the fandom who really just like
: to get their freak on in the barnyard and don't give a damn about
: cartoon critters and such.
That's not the point either. The point is about people outside the
fandom who never had nor would ever have any interest in joining the
fandom. People keep saying they are concerned about people OUTSIDE
the fandom thinking everyone in it is a pervert or z-phile or whatever.
If one of them wanders into this newsgroup during chance browsing to
see what different newsgroups are, and see a bunch of talk about that,
what are they going to think? If someone strongly opposed to the
practice, or some reporter looking to do a sensationalistic story
should happen to do a search for that word and see that it shows
up most often on alt.fan.furry, what are they going to think?
: <shrug> Anyway, I guess I'll just say
: "dogfuckers" from now on. :D
That might be something people would look for seldom or never through a
search engine. But it's still going to produce a rather dim view of
things for anyone who wanders into this newsgroup to browse, and sees
that phrase. Bad PR to keep talking about dogfuckers all the time in
my opinion, particularly when 99.9% of them are more than content to
not talk about it here at all unless somebody else brings the subject up
first, and in an insulting way to boot.
After all, throwing down an insult is often the most effective way to get
someone to reply to you. Look at the results gotten by people who come
here solely to irritate and annoy people for their own amusement. Even
after they said publically they were only here to do that, they TILL kept
getting attention!
Okie, that's it, I'm gonna insult some dawg-fuckers and git me some
attention too. Dog-fuckers dog-fuckers dog-fuckers!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
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: Gosh, I feel cheap now.)
Shimizu Kahei
>Alan \\TriGem\\ Kennedy (tri...@ohiohills.com) wrote:
>: *nods* the way that the BFs are dealign with the extremist by making them
>: dissasociate that with the BF's is how the z's p's and whatever element
>: that you dislike should be handled. Try to get them to dissacociate
>: the 'element' that makes them the outcast.
>
>You know, there is an interesting parallel there. The BF goal of
>keeping the general public from assuming a group (furry fandom) is
>all about the stuff a few radical fringe members (exhibitionist perverts
>and sickos) go around talking about... This is mirrored by the need to
>keep folks from assuming a group (Burned Furs) is all about the stuff a
>few radical fringe members (anti-gay anti-porn zealots and determined
>flaming ranters) go around saying.
>
>It seems to me that their internal image problem should be a more
>manageable one, and therefore might make a good "test case" for
>perfecting approaches to dealing with that type of issue in the
>larger arena. After all, the BFs are a smaller group than the whole
>fandom, the number of people forming opinions of them that they have
>to deal with is smaller, and the number of radical fringe members
>doing things they might want to "defuse" is smaller.
>
This is the first intelligent remark I've ever heard made in the whole
BF debate. Brilliant.
>(Disclaimer: I have an ulterior motive in suggesting the BFs should use
>the task of cleaning up their own reputation as a "test case" for
>cleaning up the fandom's reputation. Which is that MY pathetic little
>goal is "less flaming on alt.fan.furry" and I think maybe if they cleaned
>their own house first that very cleaning would reduce the flameage here
>at least a little.
Here's where you lose me though :) Why are you trying to reduce the
flamage on this group? You obviously have enough talents that they
could be applied to some less trivial, more feasible task :)
Kahei
Cybskunk
>it is, so soon it may be prosecution rather than persecution either way... I
>still wouldn't be surprised if it was one of them that ratted on CF10...
The "BFs narked on CF10" rumor has become a "furban legend". Immediately after
the con, Squee Rat was running a poll collecting votes as to whether fans
thought she was the one who did it. A recurring comment in my own circle of
furs (especially those who had survived CF8) was "I didn't do it, but I wish I
had."
The story I heard was that it was an un-named personal enemy of Mark Merlino
who did it to sabotage him thru the con. (Mustelid Mark has made a helluva lot
of enemies over the years with his arrogance and in-your-face behavoir, sexual
and otherwise.)
Cybskunk
>haven't commissioned any from you, and will not, because it is well known
>that you take people's commission money and never deliver the
>promised art. You don't return the money, either.
Welcome to fandom...
Tip: Never pay more than half in advance. If possible, a "good faith" deposit
at order time with the balance upon delivery. BGoC isn't the only one to pull
the "just pay me in advance" stunt.
Cybskunk
trust
> I'm not annoying anyone by reposting it here -- email addresses removed to
> prevent spam):
And remember, those are only the "official" BFs. You don't know how many
"stealth" or "closet" BFs there are outside of it, or ordinary
fans/artists/writers who sympathize with them without adopting the BF label.
After seeing the flames & denunciations directed towards anyone who even
resembles a BF, you think a lot of fans who agree with them are going to admit
to it?
As for me, I got into Furry Fandom at the beginning (when Mark Merlino was
straight) via the route of D&D/gaming fandom, then anime fandom. I thought
D&Ders got really strange (including some who went too far even for Knights of
the Dinner table) until I got into furries. D&Ders don't even come close.
Does anyone remember the cry of the trid D&D player "But I was only
role-playing my character!"? How it was always used to justify something sick
and/or twisted and/or socipathic and/or treacherous? Well, in this fandom
"It's *FURRY*!" and "artistic freedom" usually mean about the same thing.
Farlo
>
> Farlo wrote in message <3796DF73...@abac.com>...
>
> (snip)
>
> >
> >Hmm, now I'm practically obligated to make a suitably pompous reply ...
> >
> >"SJL, you FIEND! Your petty mewling simpering has gone on long, far too
> >long, for my tastes! WE TRUE FANS (*uh, how's that for pompous?*)
>
>
> Not bad, but you lose points for a few errors in slam-structure:
>
*pout* Well, it was pretty spur-of-the moment....
I sure wish Fysh was accessible right now.
Farlo
Hangdog
> As for me, I got into Furry Fandom at the beginning (when Mark Merlino was
> straight)
Dude! Were you, like, real sad when all those dinosaurs died?
--Hangdog ;o)
Gregg Stillman
<major snippage>
That, sir, was a beautiful post. Were this a rally or gathering of
some sort I would be clapping and cheering my brains out for you.
Very well said. Excellent points made.
Poxx
Brian O'connell
that they're just as guilty of harboring certain extremist factions as the
lifestylers... There's some lifestylers that are, in essence, acting on a
fantasy, like the Vampire LARPers, who happen to have a heavy appreciation
for furry art... They in turn are often made to look just as bad by the
extremists in their ranks... And extremists of any kind need to be removed
at any and all costs (which in itself is kind of an extremist view)... But
the best thing would be to do, define a single, impartial voice or member
who KNOWS all the sides to the arguments and issues confronting furry
fandom, and have that member act as the official liason to furry fandom...
So far it's been everything from 'Ban which we don't like, because anything
we don't like is bad.' through 'Kill 'em ALL!!!'... All of which is
counterproductive to what the Burned Furs stand for... Me, I'd join in a
heartbeat, but the sword cuts both ways, the Burned Furs should also be more
careful of who they associate with...
Extremism of ANY kind is bad, bad for publicity, bad for agendas, and
bad for defining a positive public image, no matter what side of the fence
you're on...
Dr. Cat <c...@bga.com> wrote in message news:37997...@feed1.realtime.net...
Gregg Stillman
<furball...@uswest.net> wrote:
> That's the point I was hoping to make about the burned furs en toto, is
>that they're just as guilty of harboring certain extremist factions as the
>lifestylers... There's some lifestylers that are, in essence, acting on a
>fantasy, like the Vampire LARPers, who happen to have a heavy appreciation
>for furry art... They in turn are often made to look just as bad by the
>extremists in their ranks... And extremists of any kind need to be removed
>at any and all costs (which in itself is kind of an extremist view)... But
>the best thing would be to do, define a single, impartial voice or member
>who KNOWS all the sides to the arguments and issues confronting furry
>fandom, and have that member act as the official liason to furry fandom...
>So far it's been everything from 'Ban which we don't like, because anything
>we don't like is bad.' through 'Kill 'em ALL!!!'... All of which is
>counterproductive to what the Burned Furs stand for... Me, I'd join in a
>heartbeat, but the sword cuts both ways, the Burned Furs should also be more
>careful of who they associate with...
> Extremism of ANY kind is bad, bad for publicity, bad for agendas, and
>bad for defining a positive public image, no matter what side of the fence
>you're on...
>
>
Not that I am in any position to tell you to do so, Brian, but I think
that Dr. Cat's post is so strong that it can stand on it's own. He has
a very valid point that I am keen to see other Burned Furs debate in
this forum (especially this thread). The only fear that I have of
invalidating his excellent reasoining is if other anti-BF'ers join in
this post, using his well-thought-out logic as a springboard for their
own agendas against the 'Burned-Fur' movement.
Don't.
Let it stand as it is. Don't add a 'me too!' along with your own
version of 'And they're against porn, too!' or 'they're trying to
curtail my free speech' stuff. Or even 'Here's another example!'
Because they'll arge with YOU. Not Dr. Cat.
I'd like to see them rebuke Dr. Cat on this one. Or at least try.
Please don't cloud the issue, ok? I'm sure that your reasoning is
sound. And your convictions against BF pure. Just hold yourself in
check for now. Let's not let this turn into a 50+ posting war where 30
posts down the line the same old tired shit is being said about
Godwin's Law and alla that crap, ok?
Let it ride, friend. See where it goes. I'd like to.
Poxx
"When all is said and done..quite often more is said than done." -Anon
Brian O'connell
Gregg Stillman <po...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:379a78c7....@news.mindspring.com...
> On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 14:50:49 -0700, "Brian O'connell"
> <furball...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
> Not that I am in any position to tell you to do so, Brian, but I think
> that Dr. Cat's post is so strong that it can stand on it's own. He has
> a very valid point that I am keen to see other Burned Furs debate in
> this forum (especially this thread). The only fear that I have of
> invalidating his excellent reasoining is if other anti-BF'ers join in
> this post, using his well-thought-out logic as a springboard for their
> own agendas against the 'Burned-Fur' movement.
Ummmmm, look at the starting point of the thread, does the name look
familiar? I was simply stating that Dr. Cat put it (my rant) into a more
eloquent form, which I agreed with...
>
> Don't.
>
> Let it stand as it is. Don't add a 'me too!' along with your own
> version of 'And they're against porn, too!' or 'they're trying to
> curtail my free speech' stuff. Or even 'Here's another example!'
>
> Because they'll arge with YOU. Not Dr. Cat.
>
> I'd like to see them rebuke Dr. Cat on this one. Or at least try.
> Please don't cloud the issue, ok? I'm sure that your reasoning is
> sound. And your convictions against BF pure. Just hold yourself in
> check for now. Let's not let this turn into a 50+ posting war where 30
> posts down the line the same old tired shit is being said about
> Godwin's Law and alla that crap, ok?
And all I've said for the most part is that the Burned Furs have the
likes of Ben Bruin, Hangdog and StukaFox representing them here in public...
And now for a little quote from the FAQ:
"The Burned Fur movement doesn't want to "stomp out" these segments of
"furriness", only practice vocal disassociation. In other words, "WE'RE NOT
WITH THESE GUYS". "
Time to practice what they preach, eh?
S.J.Laitila
>If you say so. ;)
I just bought a nifty infantry rifle... (including a grenade-launcher)
And, of course a flamethrower. Now I can kill even more people...
BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Alan \TriGem\ Kennedy
> I just bought a nifty infantry rifle... (including a grenade-launcher)
> And, of course a flamethrower. Now I can kill even more people...
>
> BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
*grins* and offers SJ a high five! Hey.. want to go to the cons and take out
those who disagree with us? huh? *snickers* ahahah!!
Or go blow up some japense town, put it on film and call it a monster flick?
hehe.
-- (disclaimer: This is humor, if you didn't get it, you need a clue)