what is "burned fur"?
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
Akai
>
> uhm.. being a BOF of slow brains, what is this "burned fur" thingy?
In a nutshell: a group of individuals involved with furry fandom who
have been the object of "mundane" prejudice because of public
misconceptions about the fandom resulting from the presence of certain
socially challanged elements within the fandom. These individuals have
been "burned" by the association with these unsavory elements and so
they seek to clean up the fandom by fighting against these elements.
Which amounts to the usual business of bashing on lifestylers,
zoophiles, spooge artists, etc.
That's my understanding of it anyway, if I'm wrong I'm sure I'll be
flamed hideously for it since some of these "burned furs" appear to be
rather socially challanged themselves.
--
-Akai
"It's one thing not to see the forest for the trees,
but then to go on to deny the reality of the forest
is a more serious matter." -Paul Weiss
GothTiger
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci wrote:
> uhm.. being a BOF of slow brains, what is this "burned fur" thingy?
(To quote Wile E. Coyote) "A legitimate question, prompting a legitimate
answer."
The Burned Fur movement began earlier this year as a response to what
are deemed as many of the problems facing furry fandom today. The term
'Burned Fur' was coined by Charla 'Squee Rat' Trotman, after an
unfortunate incident where her association with furry fandom as it
currently stands damaged her career as an artist. She chose the term
'Burned Fur' because:
"The name has a double meaning. Non-psycho furs can be called "Burned,"
because anyone with a firm grasp on reality would
clearly feel slighted by the screamingly deviant direction the fandom
has taken. Another way of looking at it is the example
made of furs who have spoken up against fandom perversion and been
"burned at the stake" for it."
(quote from her site)
She put together a page, and posted it as a part of her personal
website. These pages created an incredible amount of controversy,
generating over a thousand hits to Squee's website in a mere seven days,
and a further two thousand hits as of November 23rd.
In these pages, Squee took a firm stand against bestiality,
plushophilia, and 'furry lifestylism.' And although she has received the
expected amount of poorly-spelled hatemail (including at least one
letterbomb, according to her) she has also received a large amount of
support from people who felt the way she did, but didn't speak up for
fear of censure in the furry community.
Since that time the Burned Fur movement has grown, generating it's own
official website, a webring, and a discussion forum on
DejaNews.
Although the Burned Fur Movement's Statement of Principles is still
being worked on, a general overview of the basic ideas that it will be
based on can be found at Squee Rat's site, the place that started this
whole thing:
http://members.aol.com/clckwrkgod/tester.html
I hope this helped to clear some things up.
GothTiger (tig...@execpc.com)
Burned Fur
Hangdog
> Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci wrote:
> >
> > what is this "burned fur" thingy?
>
> In a nutshell: a group of individuals involved with furry fandom who
> have been the object of "mundane" prejudice because of public
> misconceptions about the fandom resulting from the presence of certain
> socially challanged elements within the fandom. These individuals have
> been "burned" by the association with these unsavory elements and so
> they seek to clean up the fandom by fighting against these elements.
It's different things to different people, but your description is about
in the center of the probability cloud. Evenhanded and concise, too.
Good job :o)
>
> Which amounts to the usual business of bashing on lifestylers,
> zoophiles, spooge artists, etc.
Among other things, yes. Not exclusively, though, and I expect it will
play a smaller and smaller role as the movement evolves.
> That's my understanding of it anyway, if I'm wrong I'm sure I'll be
> flamed hideously for it since some of these "burned furs" appear to be
> rather socially challanged themselves.
*Shrug* Must they be paragons to have a point?
("A paragon has five points, doesn't it, Brain?"
"That's PENTAGON, Pinky!")
--Hangdog, Burned Fur.
GothTiger
Akai wrote:
> Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci wrote:
> >
> > uhm.. being a BOF of slow brains, what is this "burned fur" thingy?
>
> In a nutshell: a group of individuals involved with furry fandom who
> have been the object of "mundane" prejudice because of public
> misconceptions about the fandom resulting from the presence of certain
> socially challanged elements within the fandom. These individuals have
> been "burned" by the association with these unsavory elements and so
> they seek to clean up the fandom by fighting against these elements.
> Which amounts to the usual business of bashing on lifestylers,
> zoophiles, spooge artists, etc.
>
> That's my understanding of it anyway, if I'm wrong I'm sure I'll be
> flamed hideously for it since some of these "burned furs" appear to be
> rather socially challanged themselves.
While I take a (very) small exception to being called 'socially
challenged', I must say that your description of the Burned Fur movement
is very balanced and accurate. No flaming is needed.
GothTiger, Burned Fur
(tig...@execpc.com)
Donald E. Sanders
If I may make a point here, the response you answered to was one of the
things I tried to mention. The movement itself seems to look imposing to
some folks. In a way, think of it as a broad blanket dumped on all of
the fandom, your goals is to crush a few, but in the end, you tend to
crush others who really were not involved. I'd hope this response I am
offering is not considered flaming. I can think of a lot worse things I
can say about the Burned Fur movement, but I'm being civil and open
minded about this.
>
>
--
Don Sanders
Dsan Tsan on #furry of Yiffnet
Artist at Roll Yer Own Graphics
http://www.dreamscape.com/dsand101/dsan.htm
(my furry page) Email dsan...@future.dreamscape.com
Peter da Silva
associations attached to a label they used to apply to themselves, are
attempting to resolve the problem by attaching another label to themselves.
The real solution is to decline the label.
--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
"The GCOS GERTS interface is so bad that a description here is inappropriate.
Anyone seeking to use this interface should seek divine guidance."
Jim Doolittle
Labels suck.
That just about sums up my whole position on this issue. :)
-Jim
PWL
Michael Pena wrote in message <36648cf0...@news.fysh.org>...
>Hello Bev/Steve,
>
>This will take a while to explain.
>
<snipped long description of opinions about burned fur group>
Your explanation was very well done, I have gone through everything on
Dejanews that the Burned Furs have posted, as well as the web pages in the
Web Ring they have. Quite alot of negative feelings in that bunch. Funny
how some of them state that they're the "core" of the Furry fandom, being in
the fandom for a while does _not_ make you the core. I think the thing to
do is to record everything they say, there's so many holes, stereotypes, and
hypocrisies in the group as a whole and their "constitution". Xydexx
pointed out quite a few of them in an earlier post.
Allen Kitchen
Peter da Silva wrote:
>
> A group of prople who have suffered because they got tagged with unsavory
> associations attached to a label they used to apply to themselves, are
> attempting to resolve the problem by attaching another label to themselves.
>
> The real solution is to decline the label.
The real solution, is not to be defined by any label at all. Just
be yourselves, and let the chips fall where they may.
Allen Kitchen (shockwave, who has never lost work for being eccentric)
Taura
> In a nutshell: a group of individuals involved with furry fandom who
> have been the object of "mundane" prejudice because of public
> misconceptions about the fandom resulting from the presence of
Burned by furs such as Akai who earlier this year _supported_
a `band wagon' to persicute I and several other furry artists
by a religious extremist (non-furry fan) who wanted to `stop the abuse
of animals by wrongful human sexual contact' but all other forms of
animal abuse (ie the fur industry) were acceptable to him.
For your information I was not charged with unlawful sexual contact but
rather inciting others to persicute and commit violent acts against an
individual who initially incited others to persicute and
commit violent acts against us furries. The case never went to
court as there was insufficient (as in no such) evidence.
Akai is giving you a baised opinion of `burned fur'.
Burned fur is basically a group of furries who have gone
through persicutive and other wrongful experiances from others
(including other furry fans).
I am not a member of `burned fur' nor do I have any favoritism towards
that group.
Sincerely,
-Taura
Taura
> thingy?
>
>
I visited the burned fur site, its rather long winded and overworded,
I did not find anything that involved religion fueled hate in there.
If it is such a group I have no intention of associating myself
with it.
Sincerely,
-Taura
mok...@hotmail.com
bev...@netcom.com (Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci) wrote:
> uhm.. being a BOF of slow brains, what is this "burned fur" thingy?
>
It's the latest fashion for the yerf clique.
b.root
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
David Formosa
[...]
>Since that time the Burned Fur movement has grown, generating it's own
>official website, a webring,
Which is broken and has only 4 sites.
> and a discussion forum on DejaNews.
Whos traffic is falling.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Mark Shapiro
: >Since that time the Burned Fur movement has grown, generating it's own
: >official website, a webring,
: Which is broken and has only 4 sites.
: > and a discussion forum on DejaNews.
: Whos traffic is falling.
Both of which have absolutely nothing to do with anything.
--
Galen Wolffit
FCW[Wolffit]3adrw A-- C->+ D H++ M++++ P? R+ T W Z-
Sm# RLCT a23 cln++++$ e+ f->+ h-- h+>++ iw+++$ p* sm#
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
> uhm.. being a BOF of slow brains, what is this "burned fur" thingy?
The short answer: The furry equivalent of www.godhatesfags.com
The somewhat longer answer: Yet another crusade to "clean up the fandom" by
scapegoating and infighting. This time, however, they're screaming louder
and armed with more vitriol. My guess is that they think previous attempts
to clean up the fandom this way failed because they didn't scream loud enough
or didn't spew enough hate. They figure that by being even more rabid and
frothing and unreasonable than last time, they'll eventually get their way.
But that's just my opinion, this being a free country and all. I'll stop
treating them like a hate group when they stop acting like one.
-------
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C., T.D.S.F.A.
[ICQ: 7569393]
David Formosa
>David Formosa (dfor...@zeta.org.au) wrote:
>: >Since that time the Burned Fur movement has grown, generating it's own
>: >official website, a webring,
>
>: Which is broken and has only 4 sites.
>
>: > and a discussion forum on DejaNews.
>
>: Whos traffic is falling.
>
>Both of which have absolutely nothing to do with anything.
The claime is that Burned fur movement has grown and the existence of
the webring and the discussion group is given as everdence of this.
I'm attacking that everdence pointing out that the so called
achivements have fallen flat.
Mark Shapiro
: The claime is that Burned fur movement has grown and the existence of
: the webring and the discussion group is given as everdence of this.
: I'm attacking that everdence pointing out that the so called
: achivements have fallen flat.
Why attack it at all? Do you have something against the burned fur movement?
Michael Pena
This will take a while to explain.
"Burned Fur" is a group whose members seek to purge the Furry Fandom
of what they see as undesirable deviants. In their push to get rid of
the "undesirables" they leave a wake of hurt feelings and spew enough
rage and pure hate that it threatens the laid back, happy, atttitude
of the Fandom as a whole. If it goes on much longer the Furry Fandom
will likely be split in a civil war between the Burned Furs and the
"live and let live" Furs.
The Burned Furs seem to take the narrow view that all Plushiphiles,
Zoophiles, and Furry Lifestylers are sick in the head and are an
extreme embarrassment to the so called normal Furrry Fandom. Also they
seem to have a dislike for fetishes and MUCKers but are not very
specific on these issues.
Plushiphilia does not mean that you have sex with your stuffed animal
any more than an audiophile has sex with his or her compact disc
collection. It just means that you like them to some degree, the
degree to which one showes this affection is very individual.
Likewise being a zoophile does not mean you want to mate with the
neighbor's dog. It just means that you have a deep love and
appreciattion for animals, period. Having sex with animals already has
a name "bestiality". Do some Zoophiles practice beastiality? I am
positive some do, but then again some people who smoke tobacco also
smoke crack. The two have almost nothing in common and are basically
irrelevent to each other.
By definition I am a plushiphile becuase I like to collect and hug
stuffed animals. Someday I would like to learn to sew and create
stufffed animals for myself and others. Does this mean I should be
shot in the back of the head? I think not but "Bullet to the Back of
the Head" is exactly what the Burned Fur movement has in mind for me
and others who love stuffed critters. I have had stuffed animals all
my life, just becuase I am older now does that make an instant pervert
deserving only death?
Quite frankly if someone wants to make love to their plush toy I say
why not? It does not hurt anyone and as long as they are not doing it
in public there is no logical reason why it should offend anyone. It
is no different than the traditional blow-up doll.
By definition I am also a Zoophile becuase I like to draw and
photograph animals, plus I think they make wonderful pets. Does this
make me a bad person? I think not and I believe even Audobon would
back me up in this, after all he liked to draw animals too.
Remember if someone says, "Hi I am a Zoo" it DOES NOT translate to
"Hi, I would like to hump your dog".
The Burned Fur movement also has a problem with Furry Lifestylers,
Why? Read on. In my opinion the Burned furs have a puritanical world
view. Any influx of ideas from other cultures such as Animal
Totemism(Native American), Reincarnation(Hindu), or
Lycanthropy(various) is denounced as insane. It just so happens that
the majority of Furry Lifestylers believes in at least on of these
therefore the Burned Furs do not like Furry Lifestylers.
Basically the Burned Furs want freedom to be weird in their own ways
but only in their own ways. They believe everyone else should meakly
crawl out of the Furry Fandom or be destroyed so they can have things
their way.
I would rather the Burned Furs instead of turning on their fellow
Furs(who are quite frankly shocked and hurt) they lashed back at the
mundanes that insulted them(and the rest of us) with the same ferocity
they now direct at the Furry Fandom.
Sincerely,
Michael Angel Peña(AKA Sparrow...A Rabbit)
Artist-Laughing Rabbit Graphics
http://lonestar.texas.net/~sparrow/sparrow.htm
NOT A BURNED FUR
PS-I value Human diversity, the most fun thing about the Furry critter
called Homo Sapiens :)
David Formosa
>David Formosa (dfor...@zeta.org.au) wrote:
>: The claime is that Burned fur movement has grown and the existence of
>: the webring and the discussion group is given as everdence of this.
>: I'm attacking that everdence pointing out that the so called
>: achivements have fallen flat.
>
>Why attack it at all? Do you have something against the burned fur movement?
Yes, I have something against the burnt fur movement. I would be
aginst any movement with members who advocate shooting people in the
head. I'm against any movement that chartorises plushiephiles as
evil. I'm against any movement that calls people who are
investergating animal spiritrality "Crackpots".
Yes I have something against the burnt fur movement.
RolanFox
>*ahem*
>
>Labels suck.
>
Except when you are buying non-fat frozen hershey toffee crunch ice cream bars.
I mean without the label who knows WHAT your buying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Rolanfox Productions - Savage Future Furry Game <
>http://members.aol.com/midlthsoft/savage.html <
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Fhaolan
>>
>>*ahem*
>>
>>Labels suck.
>>
>
>Except when you are buying non-fat frozen hershey toffee crunch ice cream bars.
> I mean without the label who knows WHAT your buying.
Fhaolan grins, "Even *with* tha' label, sometimes..." ;)
-Fhaolan, former Chemical Engineer who prefers *not* to read the
ingredients most of the time....
rans...@au-au.extern.ucsd.edu
> Yes, I have something against the burnt fur movement. I would be
> aginst any movement with members who advocate shooting people in the
> head.
Hmm.
I'd bet my entire net worth that there's not a single person in the Burnt Fur
movement who would actually be capable of wilfully shooting /anybody/ in the
back of the head, even if they could get away with it 100%. And I mean
/anybody/. Does that help put some perspective on Eric's webpage?
MAybe not... Y'see, in the minds of some people, satire works best when it has
no bounds. There is /nothing/ sacred, not cold-blooded murder, not wholesale
oppression, not genocide, not bigotry... anything and everything that *fnord*
makes the average joe uncomfortable is fair game, and often for no better reason
than the very /fact/ that it makes that joe uncomfortable. Perhaps the logic
goes that by making one *fnord* uncomfortable, the satirist makes them /think/
in a way they wouldn't otherwise, were they not in some way forced to by their
discomfort.
And, I might add, fixating one's objections on the /way/ in which something is
being said, rather than /what/ they're trying to say, is just another way of
hiding from the point the author is trying to make.
Does his satire sometimes seem to be in poor taste? Perhaps, but that is a
judgement call. Is his satire sometimes difficult to see as satire, appearing
instead to be a declaration of mailce and intent? Sure, but that prolly says more
about the person in question and what they might wrestle with on a daily basis
than it does about you, me, or the subject at hand.
Take it all with a grain of salt, if you can find it within you. I will
understand if you cannot for reasons of personal history or experience, but if it
helps you any let me tell you that I have met Eric Blumrich, and I would never in
a thousand years believe that he, even if he could get away with it, would ever
shoot /anyone/ in the back of the head. Even if that head belonged to old Adolf
himself.
There, I've said it. Uncle!
-Dan
--
"(the world) was too big."
-Karl Childers, /Slingblade/
rans...@au-au.extern.ucsd.edu
> bev...@netcom.com (Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci) wrote:
> > uhm.. being a BOF of slow brains, what is this "burned fur" thingy?
>
*bong!* *ROFL!*
Gheeezux Christ! You're a better coyote that I am!!
(Not that you are one, really. I'm just sayin'.)
Hangdog
> Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
>
> : > That's my understanding of it anyway, if I'm wrong I'm sure I'll be
> : > flamed hideously for it since some of these "burned furs" appear to be
> : > rather socially challanged themselves.
>
> : *Shrug* Must they be paragons to have a point?
>
> Not necessarily, but having somebody like Eric Blumrich as one of the
> flagbearers won't help the so called burned furs get their message across
> (or change many minds).
*Chuckle* Well, Blum's quite capable of defending himself, so I'll just
say that, while I don't always like his prose style, I can manage to read past
the
often excessive anger and find points I consider to be valid.
> Somebody who takes pride as the most hated person
> in the fandom wouldn't be my choice for fearless leader.
There's many things I wouldn't do the way he's done them.
But then, I didn't volunteer to do them, either
> On the other hand
> if you want to be burned more than you already feel you have stick by the
> fanatics in your group and the napalm will be sprayed forthwith.
Well, I'm sticking with Squee and Blum and Nate and Ben...
and you're not flaming me. In fact, no one's flamed me
so far, a fact which pleasantly surprises me.
> The really fortunate thing is that the majority of fans aren't the sex
> freaks
> or the burned furs but the ones inbetween that are simply interested in
> enjoying the fandom. I'll stick with them I think.
That's chilly with me: the way I see it, if you're not part of the problem,
you're part of the solution.:o)
> They tend to be nicer to be around.
Ah, but you must acknowledge "the fascination of what's difficult." ;o)
--Hangdog
(Who apparently has a Yeats infection...)
Donald E. Sanders
au.extern.ucsd.edu says...
> In article <slrn769efa....@godzilla.zeta.org.au>, dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa) writes:
> > Yes, I have something against the burnt fur movement. I would be
> > aginst any movement with members who advocate shooting people in the
> > head.
>
> Hmm.
>
> I'd bet my entire net worth that there's not a single person in the Burnt Fur
> movement who would actually be capable of wilfully shooting /anybody/ in the
> back of the head, even if they could get away with it 100%. And I mean
> /anybody/. Does that help put some perspective on Eric's webpage?
It may not be the actual act that worries most folks, but the thought
that someone could even think it. I would be just as upset if Eric had
either placed a picture of some hooded goons burning a cross, or such
same folks lynching a person of color. (Before you jump on me about
that, I am justified in using that example, ask me about it sometime.)
>
> MAybe not... Y'see, in the minds of some people, satire works best when it has
> no bounds. There is /nothing/ sacred, not cold-blooded murder, not wholesale
> oppression, not genocide, not bigotry... anything and everything that *fnord*
> makes the average joe uncomfortable is fair game, and often for no better reason
> than the very /fact/ that it makes that joe uncomfortable. Perhaps the logic
> goes that by making one *fnord* uncomfortable, the satirist makes them /think/
> in a way they wouldn't otherwise, were they not in some way forced to by their
> discomfort.
I say it had a broad effect. It's not sitting well with those the Burned
fur movement is trying to get rid of and quite a few others who do not
fall in the category that is being targeted by the Burned fur movement.
>
> And, I might add, fixating one's objections on the /way/ in which something is
> being said, rather than /what/ they're trying to say, is just another way of
> hiding from the point the author is trying to make.
Frankly, what would be that point? "Go away, we don't want your kind
hanging around here"? Hmm, I think I heard that before.
>
> Does his satire sometimes seem to be in poor taste? Perhaps, but that is a
> judgement call. Is his satire sometimes difficult to see as satire, appearing
> instead to be a declaration of mailce and intent? Sure, but that prolly says more
> about the person in question and what they might wrestle with on a daily basis
> than it does about you, me, or the subject at hand.
Perhaps it is a judgment call, I am sure there would be those who may
have lost loved ones as a result of the original action that picture was
taken, ask them about it. Meanwhile, I ask myself, could have there been
another way to make his point besides having to present such a rosy
picture of what happens to those who are against the burned fur movement.
>
> Take it all with a grain of salt, if you can find it within you. I will
> understand if you cannot for reasons of personal history or experience, but if it
> helps you any let me tell you that I have met Eric Blumrich, and I would never in
> a thousand years believe that he, even if he could get away with it, would ever
> shoot /anyone/ in the back of the head. Even if that head belonged to old Adolf
> himself.
Under other situations, I would take the movement and one of it's
speakers with a grain of salt. But when I see the salt rubbed into the
wounds of not only their targeted group, but others, it makes me think
real heard. I am sure Mr Blumrich would not even consider shooting
anyone, but even still the thought was there. Nope, time to rethink
things for that one.
Hangdog
> > uhm.. being a BOF of slow brains, what is this "burned fur" thingy?
>
>
> But that's just my opinion, this being a free country and all. I'll stop
> treating them like a hate group when they stop acting like one.
>
*sigh*
Xydexx,
I'm a Burned Fur. We've never met, and I have no quarrel with you personally.
I assume you have none against me.
Obviously, I believe that Burned Fur is *not* a hate group, but, equally
obviously, I won't be able to convince you that it isn't.
All I will say is that if you, or anyone else reading this message, truly
believes that Burned Fur is a hate group, then I encourage you to
visit the Southern Poverty Law Center at.
and report me. Tell them to contact me and ask me about my views
on furry fandom--and anything else they can think of. I
have no qualms about talking to people who *really* understand
what a hate group is.
I didn't see an e-mail address for the SPLC, but you can communicate
with them via the Web by filling out a comment form at:
http://www.splcenter.org/centerinfo/comment.html
or by post at:
Southern Poverty Law Center,
P. O. Box 2087, Montgomery, Alabama 36102-2087
For good measure, here's the address and phone number of
the FBI's Houston Field Office (I live in Houston)
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Room 200
2500 East TC Jester
Houston, Texas 77008-1300
(713) 693-5000
I will hold no grudge against anyone who takes me up on this;
I cannot condemn someone for having the courage of their
convictions. All I would ask is, if you *do* decide to
involve the SPLC, that you make a donation to them; they do
good and vital work, and I want to see it continue
Peace,
Hangdog
Akai
>
> Akai wrote:
>
> > In a nutshell: a group of individuals involved with furry fandom who
> > have been the object of "mundane" prejudice because of public
> > misconceptions about the fandom resulting from the presence of
>
> Burned by furs such as Akai who earlier this year _supported_
> a `band wagon' to persicute I and several other furry artists
> by a religious extremist (non-furry fan) who wanted to `stop the abuse
> of animals by wrongful human sexual contact' but all other forms of
> animal abuse (ie the fur industry) were acceptable to him.
Taura! Long time no see.
For the record I did NOT support the anti-zoo crusaders. I felt that
their loose interpretations of what constituted pediophillia and
bestiality were misguided and that it is never a good way to start a
dialouge with a stranger by threatening to report him/her to the F.B.I.
I objected to your reaction to him, in which you among others did a very
fine job of destroying any chance of a rational discussion. Your
persistant belief that the crusaders were religious fanatics is a
reflection of your own bias and was not supported by anything that they
said or included on their website. In the end the people you were
fighting against came out looking a lot better, not because of that they
advocated but because of how you reacted to them.
> For your information I was not charged with unlawful sexual contact but
> rather inciting others to persicute and commit violent acts against an
> individual who initially incited others to persicute and
> commit violent acts against us furries. The case never went to
> court as there was insufficient (as in no such) evidence.
Likely another invention of yours. I never read in any of your
opponents' posts any advocasy of violence against anyone. Rather the
implication that bestiality is a form of violence against animals.
> Akai is giving you a baised opinion of `burned fur'.
> Burned fur is basically a group of furries who have gone
> through persicutive and other wrongful experiances from others
> (including other furry fans).
> I am not a member of `burned fur' nor do I have any favoritism towards
> that group.
My statement was very neutral up to the part about bashing scapegoats
(which happens in almost any movement) and the expectation to be flamed
by some of the socially challanged individuals who look hard for reasons
to attack others. Speak of the devil.
Probably pointless arguing with you. You are a dedicated advocate to
your cause, and you know in your own heart that you can do no wrong in
the support of your cause, no matter what you end up doing.
> Sincerely,
> -Taura
--
-Akai
"It's one thing not to see the forest for the trees,
but then to go on to deny the reality of the forest
is a more serious matter." -Paul Weiss
Akai
>
>
> While I take a (very) small exception to being called 'socially
> challenged', I must say that your description of the Burned Fur movement
> is very balanced and accurate. No flaming is needed.
>
> (tig...@execpc.com)
Was not intending to point fingers at anyone. Every movement has its
socially challanged elements, hence the need for good p.r.
rans...@au-au.extern.ucsd.edu
> > And, I might add, fixating one's objections on the /way/ in which something is
> > being said, rather than /what/ they're trying to say, is just another way of
> > hiding from the point the author is trying to make.
>
> Frankly, what would be that point? "Go away, we don't want your kind
> hanging around here"? Hmm, I think I heard that before.
Perhaps you're not listening hard enough then. Let me ask you this- do you think
all those burning furries would be anywhere near as vocal about the sexual,
spiritual, and emotional proclivities of a subset of this fandom if they weren't
suffering for fame & fortune? Do you /really/ think their complaint is motivated
on moral grounds? Let me ask you /this/... if we got good press and lots of it
and every artist that chose to dabble in this genre for more than a year or two
got to drive around in late-model automobiles and eat sushi every night for their
trouble, do you think these people would have the motivation, much less the time,
to launch pogroms? Hell no! What you see here is a bunch of folks who don't
understand why it is that their careers aren't going the way they want them to,
and are doing their damnedest to figure out why. Whether or not they're on to
something or not is irrelevant, really, at least as far as them getting what
they want, which is respect, worship, and moolah from the mundane world-at-large.
In my opinion, these motives and goals have a heck of a lot less to do with the
advertised subject matter than they'd like to believe it does.
t...@rcs.urz.tu-dresden.de
> It's the latest fashion for the yerf clique.
Not just, it also contains at least one individual who the
former yerf admin was opposed to.
I always wondered why there has to be so much politics about a
simple art server.
I can understand part of the "burned fur" movement. When i was
new to the furries, i became friends with a lot of them. As time
passed, i learned to keep to those who are real friends and stay
away from others. I also stopped going to conventions.
However, i don't believe that forming hate groups against life-
stylers, plushophiles or any such general group will achieve
anything. This will only lead to the formation of further anti-
groups and splitting up what once started as a community.
I didn't find a "subgroup" yet with which I can associate
myself fully, i rather choose my friends myself. I guess it's
part of being a solitary species ....
unci, who doesn't like burning hys fur.
--
tobias benjamin koehler * * * * ,-/o"O`--.._ * _/(_ *
* * * * * * _,-o'.|o 0 'O o O`o--'. e\
dresden, europe * (`o-..___..--''o:,-' )o /._" O "o 0 o : ._>
* * ``--o___o..o.'' * :'.O\_ ```--.\o .' `--
un...@tigerden.com * * * `-`.,) * \`.o`._ *
t...@rcs.urz.tu-dresden.de * * * fL `-`-.,)
David Formosa
rans...@au-au.extern.ucsd.edu wrote:
>In article <slrn769efa....@godzilla.zeta.org.au>,
dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa) writes:
>> I would be
>> aginst any movement with members who advocate shooting people in the
>I'd bet my entire net worth that there's not a single person in the Burnt Fur
>movement who would actually be capable of wilfully shooting /anybody/ in the
>back of the head,
You are most likely correct, however the willingness to advocate that
belief is what worries me.
>Does that help put some perspective on Eric's webpage?
No.
>MAybe not... Y'see, in the minds of some people, satire works best when it has
>no bounds.
Thats the one thing that confused me about blumrich, the following
passage seemed almost like he was argueing against the whole burnt fur
movement (this is about plushyphiles)
]Society is realizing that those who engage in patently harmful and
]ludicrous behavior are a danger both to themselves and those around
]them. The welfare of the society as a whole is starting to be
]recognized as superceding the "rights" of a minority.
To me this sounded like a brillent stirical attack against the
burnt fur movement. Anyone who read this and knows what a plushyphile
is would have to ask themselfs "Are thay a danger to themselfs or to
people around them?". The question now is "Is Eric sabotaging the
Burnt fur movement from within?"
David Formosa
rans...@au-au.extern.ucsd.edu wrote:
>Perhaps you're not listening hard enough then. Let me ask you this-
>do you think all those burning furries would be anywhere near as
>vocal about the sexual, spiritual, and emotional proclivities of a
>subset of this fandom if they weren't suffering for fame & fortune?
Yes. To me the "suffering for fame & fortune" is mearly a "Thay
dammige property values" typ of argument.
> Do you /really/ think their complaint is motivated on moral grounds?
Yes I do, why else would people who wish to expoler there animal
natures be so targetted? How dose this harm someones attempt to gain
there income?
> Let me ask you /this/... if we got good press and lots of it
>and every artist that chose to dabble in this genre for more than a
>year or two got to drive around in late-model automobiles and eat
>sushi every night for their trouble,
And how meany arties in any genre make any decent amount of money?
Art for the most part is not a high paying occupation.
[...]
> Hell no! What you see here is a bunch of folks who don't understand
>why it is that their careers aren't going the way they want them to,
>and are doing their damnedest to figure out why.
So thay pick on people and steriotype them. Unfortunitly this is a
patten that has been repeated over and over again. And every time it
happens it is ugly.
David Formosa
>> The short answer: The furry equivalent of www.godhatesfags.com
>>
>
>I visited the burned fur site, its rather long winded and overworded,
>I did not find anything that involved religion fueled hate in there.
Its the same hate, just in a diffrent form.
David Formosa
[...]
>Obviously, I believe that Burned Fur is *not* a hate group, but, equally
>obviously, I won't be able to convince you that it isn't.
If it wasn't obvious how would you convince me? To my mind Burned Fur
is encouraging hate against plushiephiles and lifestylers.
Donald E. Sanders
au.extern.ucsd.edu says...
> In article <MPG.10ceae586...@news.fysh.org>, dsan...@future.dreamscape.com (Donald E. Sanders) writes:
>
> > > And, I might add, fixating one's objections on the /way/ in which something is
> > > being said, rather than /what/ they're trying to say, is just another way of
> > > hiding from the point the author is trying to make.
> >
> > Frankly, what would be that point? "Go away, we don't want your kind
> > hanging around here"? Hmm, I think I heard that before.
>
> all those burning furries would be anywhere near as vocal about the sexual,
> spiritual, and emotional proclivities of a subset of this fandom if they weren't
> on moral grounds? Let me ask you /this/... if we got good press and lots of it
> and every artist that chose to dabble in this genre for more than a year or two
> got to drive around in late-model automobiles and eat sushi every night for their
Oh, I have listened, and this is what I have heard, from my understanding
of the subject. "Several furs who decided to go professional found out
that for some reason, they were being snubbed, due to the fact that they
were involved with a fandom that did have a few unsavory elements." That
is what I have heard and now why I don't understand it at all. (Warning,
rant in progress my apologizes if it offends.)
If I was to compare what these Burned Furs went through to my own life
experiences, I would say they are suffering from discrimination. Every
try to apply for a high profile job that you have qualifications for but
was rejected, simply because certain members of your race were shown
constantly in the news doing things ranging from murder to violent
crimes?? Ever get strange looks from others for no real reason what so
ever? It sounds like this is what is happening to the Burned Furs. Yes,
I just stepped over the line with that remark and I am sure I will hear
about it. However I am justified in saying that. To get to the point.
If I was to start a movement because life has been unfair to me on those
grounds, (If you remember your history, it has been done, but never
completed as far as I am concerned.) I too would have difficulties.
> to launch pogroms? Hell no! What you see here is a bunch of folks who don't
> understand why it is that their careers aren't going the way they want them to,
> and are doing their damnedest to figure out why. Whether or not they're on to
> something or not is irrelevant, really, at least as far as them getting what
> they want, which is respect, worship, and moolah from the mundane world-at-large.
> In my opinion, these motives and goals have a heck of a lot less to do with the
> advertised subject matter than they'd like to believe it does.
>
The motives are sound and understandable, the methods need much work!
Like I said before, the movement seems to be like a large slab of iron
landing on a anthill, sure, you squash the ants, but in it's wake, you
squash a lot more helpful creatures. As for the future careers of those
who were burned, I can only wish them luck for that was what I have heard
in the past myself. Perhaps I should have started a movement called ,
"Burned Humans!" As for the content of my rant, I hate to have to drag
my own personal experiences into this, but I felt it was needed this
time, although I am sure to pay for it in the long run. (Oh I can see
the hate mail now).
(Not a Burned Fur, not a lifestyler, not any of those other things, just
a fur)
B.T. McCammon
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci wrote:
> uhm.. being a BOF of slow brains, what is this "burned fur" thingy?
We are like the evil jocks in the locker room of furrydom, inflicting
painful skull-grinding noogies upon the weak and immoral. We posses
superior technology, wearing electric trousers and sporting
servo-assisted pompadours. We know how to accomplish dovetail joinery
on cabinet and bureau drawers. We reject the foul corruption of the
Dewey Decimal System.
Oh hell, wait. I'm just drunk again.
DAMN!
By the way, I love your book, Ace!
Nogitsune
666
tig...@execpc.com
Taura <"learfox EnD SPAM"@deltanet.com> wrote:
> I visited the burned fur site, its rather long winded and overworded,
> I did not find anything that involved religion fueled hate in there.
>
> If it is such a group I have no intention of associating myself
> with it.
Then worry not Taura. The burned fur Statement of Principles clearly states
that the Burned Fur movement as an entity 'does not publicly discourage the
practicing of any religon.' You will run into members within the group that
are not fond of certain faiths, but we are NOT a religon-bashing
organization.
GothTiger (tig...@execpc.com)
ilr
>
> MAybe not... Y'see, in the minds of some people, satire works best when it has
> no bounds.
> There is /nothing/ sacred, not cold-blooded murder, not wholesale
> oppression, not genocide, not bigotry... anything and everything that *fnord*
> makes the average joe uncomfortable is fair game, and often for no better reason
> than the very /fact/ that it makes that joe uncomfortable. Perhaps the logic
> goes that by making one *fnord* uncomfortable, the satirist makes them /think/
> in a way they wouldn't otherwise, were they not in some way forced to by their
> discomfort.
<s> And "they" admire that so much! </s>
-ilr, Broiled Scaly
Mark Freid
their opinion.... but the whole point is, as a person in this fandom is is
demeaning and insulting to me for someone to think that I fuck toys and
suck off dogs by being in this fandom, rather than just draw "funny
animals"...
Sorry, but it's not my idea of a prerequisite for furry fandom to fill Mr.
Hoppity with steamy love cream... the unfortunate fact is those "crackpots"
who love to diddle with Mr. Potato Head tend to (metaphorically) scream
"I'm a FURRY!" in the eyes of the media.... Bullshit. They're a person with
a fetish that has NOTHING to do with "furry" art/fandom.... Either that, or
the definition of "furry" better be re-written. Sorry, but if the
definition of "furry" includes wanking Rover, and playing doctor with Teddy
Ruxpin, I want no part of it.
as for the other point... crackpots? Well, I never thought of people who
investigate animal totems and spirituality "crackpots"... It's the people
who think their actually an (insert animal here) in a human body, and bark
and growl rather than speak like a civilized person who are the
crackpots... Hey, we're all HUMANS... Deal with it.
Mark
David Formosa <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in article
<slrn769efa....@godzilla.zeta.org.au>...
> Yes, I have something against the burnt fur movement. I would be
> aginst any movement with members who advocate shooting people in the
Mark Freid
This deals with the fact that people think their animals. It's a
psychological issue, I beleive the proper medical term is "fucking nuts".
Besides that, it's not a matter of income... Everyone knows that there's no
way to make a living as a "furry" artist (the idea is pretty much
laughable)... It's a matter of reputation. Most artists want to be known
for the quality of their work, not as "a guy who draws, but he also fucks
Fluffy the stuffed bunny... or at least he MUST because he's a "furry""
Mark
David Formosa <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in article
<slrn76a0n8....@godzilla.zeta.org.au>...
Mark Freid
assocuated with plushophiles and lifestylers, being that these are the
elements seen as most negative by the public at large.
After I read the information on it, basically to me it said "Burned Furs"
are people who are tired of being degraded by the general public due to
being associated with the "unsavory" elements...
There's nothing about hating. There's nothing in the charter that says we
should go out and wipe out such people. I mean, to me it's like, you want
to perform these acts? fine... just do it in public, and please don't
equate it as part of furry fandom.
Looks like peoples paranoia has caused them to classify it as a hate group.
Sorry. You want to know what "Burned Fur" is really about? It's about an
association of furry fans who would NOT normally be guests of honor on
"Jerry Springer".
--
Peace, Apathy, Vixen.....
=====================
Mark Freid
http://wolf.tierranet.com
can...@yiffco.com
====================
(take out the "NOSPAM" part if replying by E-mail. Duh.)
David Formosa <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in article
<slrn76a3bo....@godzilla.zeta.org.au>...
Lemu...@hotmail.com
bev...@netcom.com (Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci) wrote:
> uhm.. being a BOF of slow brains, what is this "burned fur" thingy?
>
For some reason I keep being surprised that this keeps being such a big deal
as it apparently is.
Bev/Steve have doubtless gotten the gist of things, though a lot of the
responses have kind of left me, as I said, surprised. Maybe I am accustomed to
keeping company with folks with a sharply honed sense of satire & a more
sardonic sense of humor. Maybe I've gotten spoiled & forgotten how readily
many people leap to take offense to the viewpoints of others without first
pausing to examine them more closely.
'Burned Fur', to me, in its context, seems more equivalent to...lets, say, a
group of straightedge Deadheads than some kind of exterminatory "hate group".
Do you understand? (apologies to those who may squirm at the deadheads
comparison; I was shooting more for a 'group within a group' kinda thing).
It seems more to me about how the participants define themselves within the
context of the fandom than how they define the rest of the fandom.
Since I first became aware of the whole furry scene a couple years ago, I have
had a hard time associating certain aspects with the apparent focus of the
fandom in general.
These aspects include many of the targets railed against by the more
vociferous among the BF's. It's no surprise to me that there's folks with
strange predilections in the world. The surprise, however, is that people
insist that their choice of masturbation accessories are relevant to the same
fandom that I associate some of my tastes with.
These are the questions that come to my mind & they are why I choose to align
myself with the folks who call themselves Burned Furs.
What does puppyhumping have to do with funny animals? What do your personal
bedroom habits have to do with the anthropomorphic genre of art & literature?
Why are people surprised when others are disturbed & concerned by someone's
indignant assertion that they are not, in fact, a human being but rather some
kind of exotic & exciting creature trapped in 'mere' human form? (&, as Squee
deftly points out, it is *always* something exciting & exotic, like a tiger
or wolf or dragon. It's never, for instance, a lamprey or a deer tick.) Is
this any more credible an assertion than someone claiming to be Napoleon or
the most recent incarnation of Jesus?
Now, as far as I am concerned & as I am sure you will agree, these issues
are, in the context of individuals or in relation to the fandom, none of my
business.
& that's just the way I like them.
I, personally, take no issue with 'spooge' art or literature. I have no
interest in it as a subgenre; the subject matter in & of itself doesn't hold
any special appeal, nor elicit any more than the usual 'why do they have to
color it hot pink?' headshaking & resigned snicker.
Would I draw it of my own volition? Doubtful.
Do I care if other people draw it? No.
Do I want people who do things I personally don't like 'out of the fandom'?
Well, in terms of utopian dreams of the laws of the universe accommodating my
personal whims & convenience, sure, it'd be great if everything I found foul &
distasteful or boring would disappear in a *poof* of sweet-smelling purple
smoke.
But I am not queen of the world & I realize that contentment breeds dull
complacence. I also realize that while puppyhumping et al. is *not* relevant
to furrydom, there is no logical reason that those who for some strange
reason indulge in the former should be (or *could* be) prohibited from
participating in the latter. It's the implied connection between the two that
bothers me.
In fact, I very much resent the connotation.
It's not the people who need to get out of the fandom, it's the irrelevant
behaviors thereof that need to be disassociated from it.
(pretty insolent of me to prescribe what the fandom needs, huh? Heh.)
For the record, I have no recollection of reading anything that would evidence
homophobia as a force behind Burned Fur.
I find it amusing that some folks snerk at the "label" 'Burned Fur' but then
readily employ the rather disdainful term 'mundane' (which is for the record
one of my least-favorite terms ever). {shrug}
Some asked, "well what are the BFs doing to improve the fandom other than
bitching & whining & flaming?"
The answer is, "Staying in the fandom & continuing to contribute to it instead
of giving up & leaving it in disgust."
What are they contributing to the fandom? Buzz through the webring & find
out. Last I checked (yesterday) there were seven sites, not four, and the
ring has been working each time I cruised through it. There's a lot of stuff
there; art, comics, writings, & all manner of interesting furry stuff.
This is not a "love it or leave it" situation. BF's love it enough to try to
change it, to make it less of a stereotyped appellation & more of a rounded
place; trying to bolster the substance to back up the spooge. The fandom is
the participants & their creations, nothing more. & that's why I think
there's a place for Burned Fur.
--Ezuli
http://members.xoom.com/Ezuli
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
> I'm a Burned Fur. We've never met, and I have no quarrel with you personally.
Hello, Hangdog. It's unfortunate to hear you have no problem associating with
folks who think a bullet in the back of my head is a good idea.
> I assume you have none against me.
No, sir, I don't. I'm sure that aside from the current unpleasantness you're
probably an OK guy. Of course, I've never met you, so I could be wrong. I'm
sure if you ever met me, you probably wouldn't understand what all the fuss is
about. But given the fact that Burned Furs don't want to hang out with people
like me, I guess that'll just have to remain a mystery, won't it?
I think more than anything else I feel pity for you. It's unfortunate to see
folks shooting themselves in the foot, especially when they've done it once
before and apparently didn't learn from their mistakes the first time.
I've already written volumes previously on improving furry fandom's image, so
I won't bore you with them here. Suffice it to say it is my firm belief that
Burned Fur has about as much chance of improving furry fandom as Rev. Fred
Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church has of convincing me to go to church
again.
-------
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C., T.D.S.F.A.
[ICQ: 7569393]
GothTiger
Mark Freid wrote:
> I suppose you have a point in your own way, and everyone's entitled to
> their opinion.... but the whole point is, as a person in this fandom is is
> demeaning and insulting to me for someone to think that I fuck toys and
> suck off dogs by being in this fandom, rather than just draw "funny
> animals"...
(absolutely epic rant snipped)
Damn Canuss, that was brutal! Accurate, but brutal!
GothTiger (tig...@execpc.com)
Paul R. Bennett
Finally found this post.
In article <3664F3...@teleport.com>, Akai <ak...@teleport.com> writes:
> GothTiger wrote:
> >
> >
> > While I take a (very) small exception to being called 'socially
> > challenged', I must say that your description of the Burned Fur movement
> > is very balanced and accurate. No flaming is needed.
> >
> > GothTiger, Burned Fur
> > (tig...@execpc.com)
>
> Was not intending to point fingers at anyone. Every movement has its
> socially challanged elements, hence the need for good p.r.
Note the "hence the need for good p.r."
Precisely. Thank you Akai.
From what I have seen so far there have been individuals on both sides who
really should give serious consideration to that. Note that I specify both
"individuals" and "on both sides". Just in the last two days alone I have read
posts that would tend to make me pound my head against the wall. I take it as
given the "Burned Furs" are expressing opinions based on personal experiences
and those experiences themselves. Their experiences, not mine, so I can not
say yay or nay. Have some of the comments gone more than a little far? In my
opinion, yes. Have some on the other side gone too far? Equally yes. Perhaps
way too far. The not uncommon "I didn't see it so either A: It didn't happen or
B: You must have been looking for it" is a prime example. Resorting to sarcasm,
insult, personal attack(again too common), hyperbole, "we'uns vs they'uns" as
in the "Burned fur against X means burned fur against Y hence down with burned
fur". Or, from the other side the "All X is Y" or "All A is B" that has
surfaced. Umm. for that matter, that has come flying from both sides too. I
doubt I really need to bother giving specific examples for all the variables.
No doubt they are still too painfull in many memories to need restating. Nor do
I really care to identify the individuals and postings in question. A quick
perusal should identify who, what, when, why.
My suggestions?
First: I take as given these people have what they believe to be sufficient and
good reason for their beliefs and stands. I would ask that be taken into
consideration in the debate.
Second: I take it as given that those beliefs are just as important to them as
those of the folk opposing them.
Third: Resorting to the means of attack that I have seen far too often and
mentioned above, is only going to make matters worse. It will only alienate
and polarize things.
Bottom line:
To both sides... In short "keep it civil" and some on both sides have. Keep it
factual... Avoid resorting to personal attacks. Consider please that those who
can do that are going to cut a much better, and more impressive figure than those
whose only recourse is insult and ridicule.
I most sincerely hope both sides will give serious consideration to that.
>
> --
> -Akai
>
> "It's one thing not to see the forest for the trees,
> but then to go on to deny the reality of the forest
> is a more serious matter." -Paul Weiss
Paul
Hangdog
David Formosa wrote:
> In article <3664F1B4...@pdq.net>, Hangdog wrote:
> [...]
>
> >Obviously, I believe that Burned Fur is *not* a hate group, but, equally
> >obviously, I won't be able to convince you that it isn't.
>
> If it wasn't obvious how would you convince me? To my mind Burned Fur
> is encouraging hate against plushiephiles and lifestylers.
>
Well, OK. As I said to Xydexx, if that's what you really believe, you
should take some sort of action (checked out those SPLC links?). If
you don't, I must conclude that either a) you don't really think Burned
Fur is a hate group, or b) you are willing to stand idly by and do nothing
about hate groups.
Peace,
Hangdog
Tatter_D
>
>uhm.. being a BOF of slow brains, what is this "burned fur" thingy?
Just a bunch of pissed-off furs. I give them all the consideration they
deserve (i.e. none at all).
Tatter_D
>
>Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
>
>: > That's my understanding of it anyway, if I'm wrong I'm sure I'll be
>: > flamed hideously for it since some of these "burned furs" appear to be
>: > rather socially challanged themselves.
>
>: *Shrug* Must they be paragons to have a point?
>
>Not necessarily, but having somebody like Eric Blumrich as one of the
>flagbearers won't help the so called burned furs get their message across
>in the fandom wouldn't be my choice for fearless leader. On the other hand
>if you want to be burned more than you already feel you have stick by the
>really fortunate thing is that the majority of fans aren't the sex freaks
>or the burned furs but the ones inbetween that are simply interested in
>to be around.
As if they had much chance anyhow. Personally, I haven't seen much sign of
furry being headed for imminent destruction (heck, new furry cartoon series
are appearing on The Disney Channel all the time), but with paranoia being in
fashion, I suppose it's bound to impact furry somehow.
Sebastian F. Mix
Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
: A group of prople who have suffered because they got tagged with unsavory
: associations attached to a label they used to apply to themselves, are
: attempting to resolve the problem by attaching another label to themselves.
: The real solution is to decline the label.
Assuming a solution is sought for.
Given the loss of power (a lot of power, if you look at the borders of
morality touched here) inherent in this solution for those who aim to
set themselves up as labelers (with even fuzzier definitions than those
of the rather ridiculous 'anthro' movement), I wouldn't bet on it.
There's a very fine treatment about the machinations of power and
discrimination, btw., and in an anthropomorphic vein, too: the fable
"Sanctuary" by Paul Monette and Vivienne Flesher, Scribner, HC,
ISBN0-684-83286-0.
- --------------------------------chelImQo'----------------------------------- -
Sebastian F. Mix, Irenenstrasse 21a, D-10317 Berlin, Tel: ++4930 521 1034 /(a\
cha...@cs.tu-berlin.de <-no NeXTmail GCode2.1 GCS/S d?- h+ s+:- !g p? au0 w+\p)/
c(++) UX+ P? L- 3- N+++ W--- M-- !V -po+ t++@ r-- b++ e+ u* h+ f? r-- !n(+) !y+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: latin1
iQCVAwUBNmWFniNX1Lci7jVBAQFcbAP/TX6ToB4eXfhxjhD/4/NV4EKmrJkdADlo
jr9yHYvcMgcudVWN6Np7NzrvzgQDy/F8jf9Lg8VVAP4NEPItRo9D8fwN5J3btGIi
4nPQLdzY2nIM3bbnaeY5s78cckhkm8qU8iBBF8cO1xF9hfeKrQ1wMe9jTKVBoPhf
3V2XYubvMWI=
=KUgE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
StukaFox
: Hello, Hangdog. It's unfortunate to hear you have no problem associating with
: folks who think a bullet in the back of my head is a good idea.
Okay -- all of you in favour of shooting Karl Jorgensen in the back
of the, please raise your hands . . .
No one? No one at all wants to shoot Xydexx in the back of the head?
Aw, come on! SOMEONE out there must wanna shoot him in the back of
the head!
Well, sorry Karl -- some of us may think you're a wanker and a fuckwit,
but no one wants to kill ya for it. Probably a good thing, too,
as I'm sure you could find people who think the same of me.
Tatter_D
>
>> > uhm.. being a BOF of slow brains, what is this "burned fur"
>> thingy?
>>
>I did not find anything that involved religion fueled hate in there.
>
>If it is such a group I have no intention of associating myself
>with it.
>
tell you "we're not a hate group." I remember being told "the Klan isn't a
hate group" by a particularly sincere recruiter. Heck, even the Germans were
shocked when they found out what was really going on in Hitler's concentration
camps, so much so that many to this day still refuse to believe such a thing
could ever happen in their own backyard.
It's a universal trait of all successful hate groups, that the majority of the
members don't really believe they're a part of a hate group. The few people
who do know what the real purpose of their group is, are very careful not to
reveal it to the others, until their ethics are worn away by carefully worded
statements filled with language intended to soothe possible fears and sound
perfectly reasonable to most listeners, while at the same time raising fears of
"them" and eventually convincing the members that they have to surrender their
moral objections and perform acts they normally would not, in order to protect
themselves.
This is why, as long as Eric Blumrich is a member of the group, I have no real
worries about the Burned Fur movement. He's nowhere near subtle enough or
clever enough to manage a successful hate group, let alone start an actual
jihad, regardless of how hard he tries. <grin>
M. Mitchell Marmel
> Well, I'm sticking with Squee and Blum and Nate and Ben...
> and you're not flaming me. In fact, no one's flamed me
> so far, a fact which pleasantly surprises me.
Stick around, they'll get to it. :)
> Ah, but you must acknowledge "the fascination of what's difficult." ;o)
>
> --Hangdog
> (Who apparently has a Yeats infection...)
Ow. Ow. Ow. :)
-MMM-
M. Mitchell Marmel
> Bottom line:
> To both sides... In short "keep it civil" and some on both sides have. Keep it
> factual... Avoid resorting to personal attacks. Consider please that those who
> can do that are going to cut a much better, and more impressive figure than those
> whose only recourse is insult and ridicule.
>
> I most sincerely hope both sides will give serious consideration to that.
Aaah, yer mudder wears Army boots. ;)
Seriously, though, VERY well put. Bravo!
-MMM-
StukaFox
: Just a bunch of pissed-off furs. I give them all the consideration they
: deserve (i.e. none at all).
Gee, you're a bright one, Tatter -- that's how most of us got
pissed-off in the first place: a total lack of consideration.
M. Mitchell Marmel
> > MAybe not... Y'see, in the minds of some people, satire works best when it has
> > no bounds. There is /nothing/ sacred, not cold-blooded murder, not wholesale
> > oppression, not genocide, not bigotry... anything and everything that *fnord*
> > makes the average joe uncomfortable is fair game, and often for no better reason
> > than the very /fact/ that it makes that joe uncomfortable. Perhaps the logic
> > goes that by making one *fnord* uncomfortable, the satirist makes them /think/
> > in a way they wouldn't otherwise, were they not in some way forced to by their
> > discomfort.
>
> I say it had a broad effect. It's not sitting well with those the Burned
> fur movement is trying to get rid of
And this is bad? Why?
> > And, I might add, fixating one's objections on the /way/ in which something is
> > being said, rather than /what/ they're trying to say, is just another way of
> > hiding from the point the author is trying to make.
>
> Frankly, what would be that point? "Go away, we don't want your kind
> hanging around here"? Hmm, I think I heard that before.
And you'll hear it again.
And again.
Until the point is driven home.
> > Does his satire sometimes seem to be in poor taste? Perhaps, but that is a
> > judgement call. Is his satire sometimes difficult to see as satire, appearing
> > instead to be a declaration of mailce and intent? Sure, but that prolly says more
> > about the person in question and what they might wrestle with on a daily basis
> > than it does about you, me, or the subject at hand.
>
> Perhaps it is a judgment call, I am sure there would be those who may
> have lost loved ones as a result of the original action that picture was
> taken, ask them about it.
I lost close relatives in that 'original action', as you put it.
Does that give me credence?
I personally found the satire hilarious, because I can see it as satire.
-MMM-
Hangdog
> In article <bevnsagF...@netcom.com>,
> bev...@netcom.com (Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci) wrote:
> > uhm.. being a BOF of slow brains, what is this "burned fur" thingy?
> >
>
> For some reason I keep being surprised that this keeps being such a big deal
> as it apparently is.
>
<something I couldn't say better in a million years regrettably snipped>
Lemurzuli, whenever we get together, I owe you a drink. In fact, I owe you
several.
*Damn,* that was magnificent! Thank you.
Peace,
--Hangdog
M. Mitchell Marmel
> This is not a "love it or leave it" situation. BF's love it enough to try to
> change it, to make it less of a stereotyped appellation & more of a rounded
> place; trying to bolster the substance to back up the spooge. The fandom is
> the participants & their creations, nothing more. & that's why I think
> there's a place for Burned Fur.
Beautifully put. Thank you.
-MMM-
David Formosa
>[...] but the whole point is, as a person in this fandom is is
>demeaning and insulting to me for someone to think that I fuck toys and
>suck off dogs by being in this fandom, rather than just draw "funny
>animals"...
Then correct there ignorent attatides. Wrong beliefs should be
corrected not repected.
>Sorry, but it's not my idea of a prerequisite for furry fandom to fill Mr.
>Hoppity with steamy love cream.
Nor mine, but thats diffrent to giving the strong impresshion that
these people are less worthy as people.
[...]
>... Bullshit. They're a person with
>a fetish that has NOTHING to do with "furry" art/fandom.
My plush toy collection is quite anthromorphic, and if furry isn't
about anthromorphic animals then there is something wrong with it.
[...]
>as for the other point... crackpots? Well, I never thought of people who
>investigate animal totems and spirituality "crackpots"... It's the people
>who think their actually an (insert animal here) in a human body,
Given that the nature of the soul is a matter of faith rather then an
objective quility how is beleaving that you have a canine soul rather
then human soul wrong?
Hangdog
> Hangdog wrote:
> > I'm a Burned Fur. We've never met, and I have no quarrel with you personally.
>
> Hello, Hangdog. It's unfortunate to hear you have no problem associating with
> folks who think a bullet in the back of my head is a good idea.
If I though they meant that seriously, I would not associate with them.
>
> I think more than anything else I feel pity for you.
Thanks, but as there are so many people on this NG who insist
on their supposed victimhood, indeed would seem to be nothing
without it, I'll let them have my share of your pity. Their need
is greater than mine.
> It's unfortunate to see folks shooting themselves in the foot,
(Looks at both feet). No holes so far as I can see...
> especially when they've done it once
> before and apparently didn't learn from their mistakes the first time.
???
> I've already written volumes previously on improving furry fandom's image, so
> I won't bore you with them here. Suffice it to say it is my firm belief that
> Burned Fur has about as much chance of improving furry fandom as Rev. Fred
> Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church has of convincing me to go to church
> again.
I've heard about Rev. Phelps. Again I say: if you think I or Burned Fur are
anything like him or his organization, check out those Southern Poverty Law
Center links and take whatever action you feel is appropriate. And please
donate to the SPLC.
Remember, for bad men to triumph, it is only necessary for good men
to do nothing
Peace,
Hangdog
David Formosa
>The impression that I got was simply that "burned fur" wishes to not be
>assocuated with plushophiles and lifestylers, being that these are the
>elements seen as most negative by the public at large.
How so? Plushophilia has to be the most benine of fetishises.
Compaired to a lot of other things Plush is sweetness and light, most
peaple giggle in the responce to the idear of plushiephilia.
[...]
>There's nothing about hating. There's nothing in the charter that says we
>should go out and wipe out such people.
Then what are you going to do about it?
> I mean, to me it's like, you want
>to perform these acts? fine... just do it in public,
Typo?
David Formosa
>
>
>David Formosa wrote:
[...]
>> If it wasn't obvious how would you convince me? To my mind Burned Fur
>> is encouraging hate against plushiephiles and lifestylers.
>>
>
>Well, OK. As I said to Xydexx, if that's what you really believe, you
>should take some sort of action (checked out those SPLC links?).
If you don't think that its a hate group then convince me, I am
willing to have my belifes challinged, in fact I live for it. Please
show me how the Burnt fur memovement is a parradon of vertue and is
not a group that is based on hate.
What do you think I'm doing here?
> If
>you don't, I must conclude that either a) you don't really think Burned
>Fur is a hate group,
Or (c) don't think that the SPLC is not the approprate way of dealing
with this.
Hangdog
> Well, see, that's the funny thing. Any member of the "Burned Fur" group will
> tell you "we're not a hate group." I remember being told "the Klan isn't a
> hate group" by a particularly sincere recruiter. Heck, even the Germans were
> shocked when they found out what was really going on in Hitler's concentration
> camps, so much so that many to this day still refuse to believe such a thing
> could ever happen in their own backyard.
<snip>
OK. Hello, Tatter_D. I'm Hangdog, and I'm a Burned Fur.
I can see from your post that you've put a lot of time and thought into justifying
your belief that Burned Fur is a hate group. I think you are wrong, but from
this and your other posts I can also see you will not be swayed by any argument
I or anyone else could make.
So I'll make you the same offer I made to Xydexx and David Formosa: if
you really, truly believe that Burned Fur is a hate group, go to the Southern
Poverty Law Center at.
and tell them all about it. Tell them to contact me and ask me about my views
on furry fandom--and anything else they can think of. I won't mind talking to
people who *really* understand what a hate group is--in fact, I think I'd
enjoy the change of pace.
You can communicate with the SPLC via the Web by filling out a comment form at:
http://www.splcenter.org/centerinfo/comment.html
or by post at:
Southern Poverty Law Center,
P. O. Box 2087, Montgomery, Alabama 36102-2087
For good measure, here's the address and phone number of
the FBI's Houston Field Office (I live in Houston)
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Room 200
2500 East TC Jester
Houston, Texas 77008-1300
(713) 693-5000
So there you go: that should be enough information to get you started.
Of course, if you don't do anything, I will have to conclude that
either a) you don't really believe Burned Fur is a hate group, or b)
you're the sort of person who'd stand idly by and do nothing about
a hate group.
And while you're at it, please make a donation to the Southern
Poverty Law Center.
(For those of you who saw my initial post to Xydexx--sorry for
repeating this info: I'll put it in my .sig from now on)
Peace,
--Hangdog, Burned Fur
D. J. Green
around shouting "The people in Burned Fur are evil hatemongers because they
go around saying bad things about people without trying to understand what
they're really about!"
I'm not quite sure *what* the pot's calling black here...
--
"Life isn't fair" is a truism. It is *not* a license.
Donald E. Sanders
canuss...@yiffco.com says...
>
> Looks like peoples paranoia has caused them to classify it as a hate group.
> Sorry. You want to know what "Burned Fur" is really about? It's about an
> association of furry fans who would NOT normally be guests of honor on
> "Jerry Springer".
I really have nothing against the Burned Fur movement, but still, They
may not be a hate group, but really, what defines a hate group? There
are many ways to hate, not all of them are violent! I'm sorry, but I had
to say that.
--
Don Sanders
Dsan Tsan on #furry of Yiffnet
Artist at Roll Yer Own Graphics
http://www.dreamscape.com/dsand101/dsan.htm
(my furry page) Email dsan...@future.dreamscape.com
GothTiger
Lemu...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <bevnsagF...@netcom.com>,
> bev...@netcom.com (Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci) wrote:
> > uhm.. being a BOF of slow brains, what is this "burned fur" thingy?
> >
>
> For some reason I keep being surprised that this keeps being such a big deal
> as it apparently is.
>
(One of the most brilliant posts that I've seen in years snipped)
> This is not a "love it or leave it" situation. BF's love it enough to try to
> change it, to make it less of a stereotyped appellation & more of a rounded
> place; trying to bolster the substance to back up the spooge. The fandom is
> the participants & their creations, nothing more. & that's why I think
> there's a place for Burned Fur.
Magnificent. Absolutely magnificent.
My fellow BFs, I move that we nominate this individual for an award of some sort.
Either that, or create one!
GothTiger (tig...@execpc.com)
SKUNK
>
> Tatter_D wrote:
>
> > Well, see, that's the funny thing. Any member of the "Burned Fur" group will
> > tell you "we're not a hate group." I remember being told "the Klan isn't a
> > hate group" by a particularly sincere recruiter. Heck, even the Germans were
> > shocked when they found out what was really going on in Hitler's concentration
> > camps, so much so that many to this day still refuse to believe such a thing
> > could ever happen in their own backyard.
>
>
>
> I can see from your post that you've put a lot of time and thought into justifying
> your belief that Burned Fur is a hate group. I think you are wrong, but from
> this and your other posts I can also see you will not be swayed by any argument
> I or anyone else could make.
Burned Fur is more of an unrest movement. If anything, Squee's Burned
Fur manifesto is more like Martin Luther posting his 95 Theses on the
doors of the Catholic church than some nazi document. My impression of
what BF was when it got started was to make a move from mainstream furry
and all its negative associations and form a separate group. Most
Burned Furs I know don't seriously want to give the spoogemonkeys and
sexmongers hash so much as just get away from them. The hash that is
given is usually in jokes among BFs that leak out to the traditional
furry crowd and then the shit hits the fan.
Hangdog
> If you don't think that its a hate group then convince me, I am
> willing to have my belifes challinged, in fact I live for it. Please
> show me how the Burnt fur memovement is a parradon of vertue and is
> not a group that is based on hate.
OK. First, the founder of the movement, Squee Rat, a black female
college student, is an avowed pacifist. Go to her site
(http://members.aol.com/squeerat/) and *carefully* read (or re-read)
her Manifesto (http://members.aol.com/clckwrkgod/tester.html)
and Modest Proposal (http://members.aol.com/clckwrkgod/tester2.html).
You will find a great deal of anger in both--but no calls for violence.
Blumrich's site (http://vision.nais.com/~blumrich/) is pretty strong--
too strong for me, sometimes. Yeah, I disliked his cartoon of Nazis
executing plushophiles. But I knew that for satire--hamhanded satire, true--
*not* a serious proposal. Why? Because I'd read some of his other
opinion pieces (like http://vision.nais.com/~blumrich/page8.html),
and I know that he is passionately opposed to totalitarian regimes
anywhere and pogroms of any sort. Yes, it's hard to read past his rage
sometimes. Yes, I disagree with him on a number of points. But I strive
to be *genuinely* open-minded, which in this case means trying to read
and understand things with which I might disagree. Are you willing to do
the same?
(BTW, consider the following three words: Blumrich, Jew, Nazi;
"o/~ One of these things is not like the others,
one of these things does not belong...o/~" For those who
don't get the joke: do you think a guy named Blumrich would
have *anything* to do with Nazism, other than to oppose it?
Sheesh...)
Then check out the Burned Fur discussion group on DejaNews
(http://www.dejanews.com/[ST_uf=1]/home_bg.shtml is the
location of their internal forim browser),specifically my post
"What Burned Fur Means To Me," which has stood without
comment for about a month now ("silence gives assent"
;o) Also follow the thread "Statement of Principals." Yes, Blum
started it--but only to ask "Whatdo we really believe?"
Nate Patrin and GothTiger have both contributed excellent posts.
In *none* of these things will you find any calls for violence, or
expressions of hate.
As for showing you Burned Fur is a paragon of virtue--that is not
necessary, as I've said. Perfection is not necessary to make a
valid point.
> What do you think I'm doing here?
Huh? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you meant by that.
> > If
> >you don't, I must conclude that either a) you don't really think Burned
> >Fur is a hate group,
>
> Or (c) don't think that the SPLC is not the approprate way of dealing
> with this.
I agree with you there, but not for your reasons :o) The Southern
Poverty Law Center tracks hate group activity nationwide, and
does a damned fine job of it, too. They openly solicit information
on such activity, no matter how slight. I would encourage *everyone*
who thinks they may have observed hate group activity to supply
the SPLC with the facts of their observation. It is vital intelligence
in the battle against *real* hate in this country.
I say again, if you *truly* believe Burned Fur to be a hate group,
you should notify the SPLC. Be sure to explain to them the
terms "zoophilia," "plushophilia," and "furry lifestyler,"
as they are all germane to the issue.
Of course, you may be too embarassed to mention such
silly things to a group whose work is deadly serious. I know
I would be. But then, I'm not the one saying Burned Fur
is a hate group.
Peace,
Hangdog
Support the Southern Poverty Law Center: http://www.splcenter.org/
Report hate group activity to SPLC at:
http://www.splcenter.org/centerinfo/comment.html
View FBI hate crime statistics at: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm
Hangdog
> In article <01be1e10$ebe4c120$476e...@PC5158858.MDC.COM>,
> canuss...@yiffco.com says...
> >
> > Looks like peoples paranoia has caused them to classify it as a hate group.
> > Sorry. You want to know what "Burned Fur" is really about? It's about an
> > association of furry fans who would NOT normally be guests of honor on
> > "Jerry Springer".
>
> I really have nothing against the Burned Fur movement, but still, They
> may not be a hate group, but really, what defines a hate group?
Don--if you really want an answer to that question, the folks in my .sig
will be happy to help.
Peace,
Hangdog
Support the Southern Poverty Law Center: http://www.splcenter.org/
Report hate group activity at: http://www.splcenter.org/centerinfo/comment.html
Donald E. Sanders
> Tatter_D wrote:
>
> > Well, see, that's the funny thing. Any member of the "Burned Fur" group will
> > tell you "we're not a hate group." I remember being told "the Klan isn't a
> > hate group" by a particularly sincere recruiter. Heck, even the Germans were
> > shocked when they found out what was really going on in Hitler's concentration
> > camps, so much so that many to this day still refuse to believe such a thing
> > could ever happen in their own backyard.
>
>
> OK. Hello, Tatter_D. I'm Hangdog, and I'm a Burned Fur.
>
> I can see from your post that you've put a lot of time and thought into justifying
> your belief that Burned Fur is a hate group. I think you are wrong, but from
> this and your other posts I can also see you will not be swayed by any argument
> I or anyone else could make.
>
> Poverty Law Center at.
>
> http://www.splcenter.org/
Although I feel that you are sincere in your belief that your movement is
not a hate group, I still feel that some of the principles behind it is
wrong. As per say, your group is not a official hate group, but a few
people in it do harbor some hatred towards certain elements of the fandom
and certain people. As I have noticed from the replies to this thread,
there are those who I would gather are not members of the movement, but
in their own radical way support what you are doing. I will not name
names, but do believe you know who they are. In this case, the
references you gave in your post may not apply to this situation. Those
organizations deal with what could be considered terrorism by such hate
groups like the KKK and the Aryan Nation. In this case, those references
does not apply here because the kind of terrorism being done here is on
the psychological level. As a victim of such terrorism in the past by
the said groups I have mentioned. I feel that the burned fur movement is
heading in that direction. Please understand I have nothing against the
movement nor do I have anything against those the movement is trying to
rid the fandom of. Some situations just can't be solved by going to
outside organizations but must be helped from inside. Through
understanding and tolerance. Like I stated in another post, If I was to
for a movement because I did not get a fair shake in life, or because I
hated being associated with undesirable members of my Race, I would be no
better than those hate groups.
>
> (For those of you who saw my initial post to Xydexx--sorry for
> repeating this info: I'll put it in my .sig from now on)
>
> Peace,
>
> --Hangdog, Burned Fur
Understand comes in time and tolerance.
(Not a burned fur, not a actual lifestyler, but a normal fur, if that
still applies)
Hangdog
> Although I feel that you are sincere in your belief that your movement is
> not a hate group,
Well, that's something. Thank you.
> I still feel that some of the principles behind it is wrong.
*Shrug* Since you've never been less than civil (polite, in fact) to me,
I think we can agree to disagree on that.
> As per say, your group is not a official hate group, but a few
> people in it do harbor some hatred towards certain elements of the fandom
> and certain people. As I have noticed from the replies to this thread,
> there are those who I would gather are not members of the movement, but
> in their own radical way support what you are doing. I will not name
> names, but do believe you know who they are.
No, actually, I don't; I could guess at who you mean, but, I'm sorry, I
can't read minds. If you think there are people out there who are actual
or potential Burned Fur members or sympathizers and who intend *real* physical
intimidation or violence towards others, *please* tell me--or Squee, or Nate,
or Blum--who you think they are, so we can be on guard against them.
I guarantee that Burned Fur does NOT want to be associated with such people.
> In this case, the references you gave in your post may not apply to this situation.
I think they most definitely *don't* apply--but not for your reasons ;o)
> Those organizations deal with what could be considered terrorism by such hate
> groups like the KKK and the Aryan Nation. In this case, those references
> does not apply here because the kind of terrorism being done here is on
> the psychological level. As a victim of such terrorism in the past by
> the said groups I have mentioned. I feel that the burned fur movement is
> heading in that direction.
Well, I feel that it is not. I see no such trend in the movement, and
should one ever actually arise I think it would face absolute and unyielding
opposition from myself, and all the other Burned Furs I know, including--
*especially*--Eric Blumrich
> Please understand I have nothing against the
> movement nor do I have anything against those the movement is trying to
> rid the fandom of. Some situations just can't be solved by going to
> outside organizations but must be helped from inside. Through
> understanding and tolerance. Like I stated in another post, If I was to
> for a movement because I did not get a fair shake in life, or because I
> hated being associated with undesirable members of my Race, I would be no
> better than those hate groups.
I'm not quite sure I follow what you're saying, but from what I
can make out it sounds like nothing I'd object to. :o)
I joined Burned Fur (inasmuch as you can "join" an organization with no
dues, officers, or membership list) because I did not want to be associated
with bestiality, public displays of fetishism, or "New Age" cant just
because I like funny animals. It's not a perfect solution to the fandom's
problems, but one has to start *some*where. Civil exchanges like
this give me an idea about where I'd like it to go next.
Thank you.
Peace,
Hangdog
Support the Southern Poverty Law Center: http://www.splcenter.org/
Report hate group activity: http://www.splcenter.org/centerinfo/comment.html
Donald E. Sanders
argument, I have formed the following thoughts. The Burned Furs have
developed a very unique strategy to eliminate their Hate Group label. I
salute them for that and would love to shake the hand of the fur who came
up with it. In a way, it is a dare to air out our internal problems to
the outside world. (Please note, when I mean the outside world, I mean
those who are non-furry for that is what I think the goal of the Burned
Fur movement to show the outside world they are not strange or weird.) I
have heard stories stemming from members being disgruntled about being
associated with such things as Lifestylers, Plushphiles, totem animal
enthusiasts, and of course, The Zoophiles. I also heard from those who
think there is way too much Erotic Art in the furry genre. While all
those are valid points to get upset, I still don't see the real point.
Sure careers of some were damaged by this, and for that I feel for them.
I myself may be considered guilty due to the fact that although I am not
a good artist, I have drawn erotic images, have written erotic stories, I
do own a few plushies, I had a totem animal in my youth, (A imaginary
Deer friend as a very very small child, what can I say, I love Bambi!),
although I have never entertained the thoughts of getting it on with
rover, I find it interesting as a passing curiosity as one would go to
the carnival to see the freak shows! As for the other things, true, I
have yet to have my career, such as it is, damaged by my association with
the furry fandom. I don't claim to be a oldtimer in the fandom because
although my interest in furries go back to the early 60's, I did not know
about the online fandom until 1994. Since then I had no real problems
with the so-called undesirables in the fandom. I consider many
lifestylers friends, I still have my plushies, I chuckle at erotic art
due to the fact that it has not yet turned me into a degrading pervert,
which go the same way with my art, I am improving my style. As for
everything else, why bother explaining, it would be a waste of bandwidth.
I still stand by by belief that although the Burned Fur movement is good
with intentions, the approach still sets me off badly. Persecution is
still persecution. The satire on Eric Bumrich's page is satire, but
still done in bad taste as far as I am concerned. One of your members
should understand that, but I figure that person was too young to
remember how one race had to face hounding and persecution, death, and
violence to at least archive some measure of equality. Now don't
misquote me here, I am not stating that those who the movement are on the
same level as discriminated and persecuted races. By all means, don't
get that idea, it is just the principle behind it. I hated to drag out
lessons learned in life, but I figured an example is good as the next
one. I refrain from calling the Burned Fur Movement a bunch of Hate
Mongers, and I apologize for letting on that image, however, the
practices behind their idea still worries me.
These are my final thoughts on this subject, I will still read this
subject, but will not respond. In that respect, any rebuttal to what I
have to say will be accepted, in fact, hense forward, any rebuttal will
be agreed upon on my side because I have wasted enough energy on this
subject anyway and wish to carry on with other activities. I am giving
the Burned Fur movement the last word as far as I am concerned, although
I am not saying they win, I feel there was no battle in the first place,
just a big misunderstanding that should be resolved. I am not the one to
resolve it, they must find their own truths. I will be a Live and Let
live Fur. I have seen enough life in my 40 years on this planet to say,
"What's the point in battling when the others have bigger guns." In
passing, I would like to wish the movement well, but not give them my
blessing until they can resolve the conflict in their scope. I would
like to say to those who the group has targeted, on some points I will
accept with a grain of salt, they made their choices and they will live
by them. If what they do violates the law, perhaps they can think before
they get caught. If it is something along the lines of lifestyle, they
are people to and more power to them for doing what they want to do.
Perhaps reason will prevail and this fandom, founded on fun and the
intent of being a outlet to the pressures of the real world, will be
something to enjoy again, not a stepping stone to fame, power, and glory.
(A live and let live fur)
Hangdog
> <reasonable and dignified statement regretfully snipped>
OK. As an opposition viewpoint, it's one I can live with.
Thank you for participating in this discussion, Dan. You have been
rational, polite, and have displayed the ability to alter your opinions
when presented with sound evidence and arguments. That makes
you a rarity on UseNet in general and AFF in particular. If we ever
are both at the same convention, I'd like to get together.
Kory Anders
wrote:
>"Donald E. Sanders" wrote:
>
>> In article <01be1e10$ebe4c120$476e...@PC5158858.MDC.COM>,
>> canuss...@yiffco.com says...
>> >
>> > Looks like peoples paranoia has caused them to classify it as a hate group.
>> > Sorry. You want to know what "Burned Fur" is really about? It's about an
>> > association of furry fans who would NOT normally be guests of honor on
>> > "Jerry Springer".
>>
>> I really have nothing against the Burned Fur movement, but still, They
>> may not be a hate group, but really, what defines a hate group?
>
>Don--if you really want an answer to that question, the folks in my .sig
>will be happy to help.
>
>Peace,
>
>Hangdog
>
>Support the Southern Poverty Law Center: http://www.splcenter.org/
>Report hate group activity at: http://www.splcenter.org/centerinfo/comment.html
>View FBI hate crime statistics at: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm
>
This is a serious question, not a flame. What would you do if
someone did report the BFM as a hate group?
Kimba W. Lion
>A group of prople who have suffered because they got tagged with unsavory
>associations attached to a label they used to apply to themselves, are
>attempting to resolve the problem by attaching another label to themselves.
>
>The real solution is to decline the label.
That's what I've always thought, but some people don't want to hear that.
My observation of "burned fur" is that it is impossible to define what it
is without defining what it _isn't_. And that makes it negative overall,
leads to introducing 'outsiders' to the very elements it seeks to
suppress, and only naturally ends up sounding like a hate group.
Blumrich's Page 10 shows that he had a problem with the attendees of
ConFurence. (I've never been to a ConFurence; I don't know what it's
like.) Squee Rat seems to have been over-evangelized by someone who was
taken with animal spirituality (among other things; the spirituality
aspect of what gets lumped into "furry lifestylism" [sheesh, what a term]
is what concerns me). Somehow, these isolated experiences now are used to
define a "movement". And if there is an element of satire in all of this,
somebody please explain it to me because it went completely over my head.
When someone takes the label "Burned Fur", it says to me, at best, that
here is a person who has been hurt somehow by someone else and he or she
wishes to shove that wound in my face. At worst, it says "I'm full of
hate". Since the term intrinsically refers to something which the wearer
of the label disapproves of, I don't see how it can ever have a positive
connotation.
Just my take on the unpleasantness. Flame away; after all, I am one of
those wacky lifestylers. (Although, if I ever did anything to hurt anyone,
I'd prefer it if you'd simply point it out so that I could make amends.)
Kimba W. Lion
Kimba W. Lion
>Squee's Burned
>Fur manifesto is more like Martin Luther posting his 95 Theses on the
>doors of the Catholic church than some nazi document.
Abso-freakin-lutely incredible.
Or was this also supposed to be "satire"?
Kimba W. Lion
><something I couldn't say better in a million years regrettably snipped>
>
>*Damn,* that was magnificent! Thank you.
Since Lemurzuli included the obligatory uncomprehending slam against those
who are exploring admittedly unusual (in the United States, anyway) paths
of spirituality, can either of you explain how your participation in
Burned Fur differs from someone who would go around saying something like
"You're damned to Hell for not believing in Jesus"?
Kimba W. Lion
>Because I'd read some of his other
>opinion pieces (like http://vision.nais.com/~blumrich/page8.html),
Only Page 10 was working when I was there.
>Then check out the Burned Fur discussion group on DejaNews
Maybe you should specify which Burned Fur group you mean, because when I
did a search for "Burned Fur", the group I found had things like this:
"It should go beyond "we wanna kick all the degenerates out", (even though
that's pretty much what it's all about...)"
"The only way we're gonna be able to overcome these degenerates is by
increasing our numbers and heightening our volume- always at their
expense..."
"I'd certainly want to do more to the degenerates than simply kick 'em
out. But if I were to post any of those wishes here I'd very likely end
up arrested."
>I say again, if you *truly* believe Burned Fur to be a hate group,
>you should notify the SPLC.
Nobody's buying that line. Doesn't mean you have a point.
>Be sure to explain to them the term "furry lifestyler,"
How would _you_ define the term? Seeing as how the Burned Fur Constitution
leaves it undefined, yet it keeps being mentioned as a Bad Thing...?
>Peace
I hope so.
Kimba W. Lion
David Formosa
>Donald E. Sanders wrote:
[...]
>> Frankly, what would be that point? "Go away, we don't want your kind
>> hanging around here"? Hmm, I think I heard that before.
>
>And you'll hear it again.
>
>And again.
Yes where ever bigotry and haterid exist we will here thouse words.
Xydexx Squeakypony
> After I read the information on it, basically to me it said "Burned Furs"
> are people who are tired of being degraded by the general public due to
> being associated with the "unsavory" elements...
I think they'd accomplish a lot more if they focused on the people who are
making that association instead of scapegoating people who have a legitimate
interest in anthropomorphics.
> There's nothing about hating. There's nothing in the charter that says we
> should go out and wipe out such people. I mean, to me it's like, you want
> to perform these acts? fine... just do it in public, and please don't
> equate it as part of furry fandom.
Just do it in public? -:)
> Looks like peoples paranoia has caused them to classify it as a hate group.
Hey, what's the status on those anti-Lifestyler t-shirts?
> Sorry. You want to know what "Burned Fur" is really about? It's about an
> association of furry fans who would NOT normally be guests of honor on
> "Jerry Springer".
Hooray for them. I'm just wondering, in their busy schedule of being anti-zoo,
anti-plush, anti-Lifestyler, and anti-Xydexx, when do they find the time to be
pro-furry?
____________________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony [ICQ: 7569393]
Duncan Mac Dougall
> flamed hideously for it since some of these "burned furs" appear to be
> rather socially challanged themselves.
You're *ALL* socially challenged!!!!
___________________________________________________________________________
Visit the Great Computolio Homepage
at: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/1953/
Hangdog
> On Wed, 02 Dec 1998 14:44:20 -0600, Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Donald E. Sanders" wrote:
> >
> >>I really have nothing against the Burned Fur movement, but still, They
> >> may not be a hate group, but really, what defines a hate group?
> >
> >Don--if you really want an answer to that question, the folks in my .sig
> >will be happy to help.
> >
> >Peace,
> >
> >Hangdog
> >
> >Support the Southern Poverty Law Center: http://www.splcenter.org/
> >Report hate group activity at: http://www.splcenter.org/centerinfo/comment.html
> >View FBI hate crime statistics at: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm
> >
>
> This is a serious question, not a flame. What would you do if
> someone did report the BFM as a hate group?
I don't think it would get far enough to require me to do
anything; they'd probably realize it's a false alarm after
they checked out Squee's site.
If necessary, I'd contact them myself, talk to them about my
views on furry fandom--and anything else they cared to ask
me about. Whatever. And, at the end, apologize for their
being sent on a wild goose chase.
The SPLC strikes me as a careful and fair-minded outfit, so I
have no aversion to discussing the issue with them--in fact,
I'd rather welcome it; at least I'd be talking to people who
have a solid, realistic idea of what a hate group actually *is*.
Peace
Hangdog
> Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
>
> >Because I'd read some of his other
> >opinion pieces (like http://vision.nais.com/~blumrich/page8.html),
>
> Only Page 10 was working when I was there.
*Shrug* that link was working as of 3:00 pm central. Try again.
> >Then check out the Burned Fur discussion group on DejaNews
>
> Maybe you should specify which Burned Fur group you mean, because when I
> did a search for "Burned Fur", the group I found had things like this:
>
> "It should go beyond "we wanna kick all the degenerates out", (even though
> that's pretty much what it's all about...)"
> <etc. snipped>
Yes, a lot of people on Burned Fur don't like the doll-fetishists or
bestialists.
My point is that there are no threats of violence in even the most vociferous
posts on the subject--a point which your selection of quotes does not refute.
BTW, did you read the other posts? My post on "What Burned Fur Means to me?"
There's a diversity of opinion in the Burned Fur newsgroup, and you are
reporting
only one side.
> >I say again, if you *truly* believe Burned Fur to be a hate group,
> >you should notify the SPLC.
>
> Nobody's buying that line.
The line that Burned Fur is a hate group? No, it would seem
they're not.
> Doesn't mean you have a point.
My point is that Burned Fur isn't a hate group. But if you truly
believe it to be one, contact the SPLC. Have them talk to me.
My goal here is to end up talking to folks who actually *know*
what a hate group is.
> >Be sure to explain to them the term "furry lifestyler,"
>
> How would _you_ define the term? Seeing as how the Burned Fur Constitution
> leaves it undefined, yet it keeps being mentioned as a Bad Thing...?
If you'll follow the Burned Fur forum thread on "A Statement of Principals,"
you'll note that the evolving consensus among Burned Furs is that lifestylism
is an open issue, seeing as how it contains both good and bad elements.
My opinion?
Where "furry lifestyle" means studying literature, folklore, religion,
anthropology
and art as a means to emotional and mental growth, I'm for it.
Where "furry lifestyle" means having sex with animals, or stuffed dolls,
or endorsing or countenancing either, I'm against it.
> >Peace
>
> I hope so.
*Shrug* I'm offering it; I can't make you take it.
> Kimba W. Lion
Hangdog
Well, for my part--I don't believe in damnation or hell, so I can't wish
those on you for disagreeing with me. I *can* wish you a (virtual) pie in the
face--which do you prefer: lemon meringue or coconut custard? :o9
As for Jesus, you can choose to disbelieve in his existence--or
Napolean's, or Gandhi's, or any other historical figure's for that matter.
Just don't say that on a History exam; they count off for it ;o)
Peace and Pies,
--Hangdog
Hangdog
> In article <3664d312...@news.istar.ca>,
> ark...@istar.ca wrote:
> > On 2 Dec 1998 05:43:11 GMT, rola...@aol.com (RolanFox) wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >>*ahem*
> > >>
> > >>Labels suck.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Except when you are buying non-fat frozen hershey toffee crunch ice cream bars.
> > > I mean without the label who knows WHAT your buying.
> >
> > Fhaolan grins, "Even *with* tha' label, sometimes..." ;)
> >
> > -Fhaolan, former Chemical Engineer who prefers *not* to read the
> > ingredients most of the time....
>
> "Nevertheless, I advise you in future to replace the words 'Crunchy Frog'
> with the legend 'Crunchy, Raw, Unboned, Real DEAD FROG' if you want to avoid
> criminal prosecution!!! "
Here, Rolan: try a "Ram's Bladder Cup"...:o9
Hangdog
(Who thinks "Spring Surprise" would be a top-seller among the Gothick crowd...;o)
Hangdog
> > That's my understanding of it anyway, if I'm wrong I'm sure I'll be
> > flamed hideously for it since some of these "burned furs" appear to be
> > rather socially challanged themselves.
>
> You're *ALL* socially challenged!!!!
Are NOT!! ArenotarenotARENOT!!!
And you're just an ol' meaney!!!
;o) ;o) ;o) ;o) ;o) ;o) ;o) ;o)
Peace
Hangdog
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Visit the Great Computolio Homepage
> at: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/1953/
"The Great Computolio?" Sounds like a case of too much Java...
Hangdog
> In article <3665A1F4...@pdq.net>, Hangdog wrote:
> >
> >OK. First, the founder of the movement, Squee Rat, a black female
> >college student,
>
> Unfortunily no race (or gender) lacks the ability to hate [1].
Quite true. But hate groups that accept black female members
(especially boisterous, opinionated ones) are rather few and
far between...
> > is an avowed pacifist. Go to her site [...]
> >You will find a great deal of anger in both--but no calls for violence.
>
> I've re-read for the 3rd (or 4th time) thouse documents and I consider
> them filled with anger yes, the anger is fuled by hatrid, intolorence
> and ignorence. Much of what squees says are missunderstandings or
> even strate out inaccurieses.
Misunterstandings, inaccuracies, anger, intolerance and hatred...
I'm not conceding you're right on these points, but even if I did,
you still haven't found a word about violence--even after
reading both tracts 3 or 4 times.
Can't we just amicably conclude that you disagree with Squee's
message and dislike her way of expressing it, without labeling
her--or me--a member of a hate group? I think that's what's
at the heart of this matter.
> Indeed some of the staments don't seem logical to me, plushyphiles
> are worce then zoophilies?
*Shrug* I said as much to her in a private e-mail right after the
Manifesto was posted. But I'm not her editor; she has the right
to disagree with me, and I with her. Because Burned Fur is not a
cozy-cuddly little puppy-pile of snuggly tailwaggers who all
luuuuuv one another and agree about everything; we're a
bunch of pissed-off mavericks who don't like the looks of
this cliff the whole herd seems headed for, so we're going
our own way and being as *loud* about it as possible. We're
the original MAD COWS, and we're not gonna take it
anymore!!
"Moo, everybody!! I am saying, MOOOOOOO!!! "
--Johnny the Holstein Maniac
*ahem* Sorry--where was I...? ;o)
> > But I strive
> >to be *genuinely* open-minded, which in this case means trying to read
> >and understand things with which I might disagree. Are you willing to do
> >the same?
>
> Yes thats why I read the burned fur thing over a few times, (BTW why
> BURNED rather then BURNT), would I suggest you read the ALF FAQ as
> well, I would be intersted in your comotry about it.
Actually, I have. It's not bad--except for the part about "zoophilia" being
"on-topic"
> It is an unfortunite fact of histroy that there have been jewish
> members of both Nazis and Neo-Nazi groups.
Yes, but you'd think that if an ex-Jew joined a neo-Nazi group
(I mean, he'd *have* to be an *ex*-Jew, right?), he'd at least
change his name...
> >As for showing you Burned Fur is a paragon of virtue--that is not
> >necessary, as I've said.
>
> Don't I get to make use of hyperboly as well?
No, of course not! I called dibs on hyperbole, remember? ;o)
(Seriously, point taken :o)
> >> What do you think I'm doing here?
> >
> >Huh? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you meant by that.
>
> I mean, my activerty here is the way I'm acting against what I
> consider a hate group.
Oh. 'kay then.
> >> Or (c) don't think that the SPLC is not the approprate way of dealing
> >> with this.
> >
> >I agree with you there, but not for your reasons :o) The Southern
> >Poverty Law Center tracks hate group activity nationwide, and
> >does a damned fine job of it, too.
>
> Thay seem to be focusted on antygay and racial hatrid. This is an
> antyplushifile/lifestyler hate group, I don't know if thay would even
> understand what I'm on about[2].
Well then, as I suggested--*explain* it to them. My point is
that in all of the United States, they're the group that's most
experienced in and best set up for tracking hate groups. As
their name implies, they originally focussed on racial hatred
in the South, but they've now expanded their mission to include
all sorts of hate crimes all over the USA. I'm sure if they
thought Burned Fur was a real threat, they'd be willing to
extend their oversight even further.
> >Of course, you may be too embarassed to mention such
> >silly things to a group whose work is deadly serious.
>
> I don't consider furry lifestylisum to be a silly thing, it is the
> closest thing I currently have to a religious viewpoint.
The "silly things" I meant were the assertions that Burned Fur
is a hate group. Sorry, I wasn't clear enough on that.
> [1] Apart from Vulcans, but thay don't exist.
(The dog assumes a Nixonian pose, shoulders hunched,
arms in the air--only with both hands in the "Live Long And
Prosper" sign. He shakes his jowls and intones:)
"I am not a Spock!"
> [2] Sometimes I don't understand what I'm going on about.
Somehow I can see those words in a thought balloon over
the Energizer Bunny's head...;o)
Peace,
Hangdog
You know, it somehow never fails to surprise me when an intelligent, articulate,
thoughtful person agrees with something I've written.
Thank you, Mr. Thornton
(may I call you Billy-Bob? ;o)
Hangdog
> IIn addtion cats are able to tell the diffrence between verious spicies
> of rodents (and com"spices?"minicate this) so I think that nowing itself is a
> cat is not beond this.
"spices?" :o)
David, please believe that I am not making fun of your spelling--
I know it is a matter beyond your control and irrelevant to the quality
of your posts--but I just *couldn't* prevent the image from popping
into my mind of a blindfolded cat in a chef's toque, inspecting several
dishes laid out in the best _nouvell_cuisine_ style:
"*sniff*sniff* Hmm...Norwegian wharf rat _au_poivre_...*sniff*...
cinnamon-dusted Least Shrew...*sniff*...ahh...timbale of vole in
chipotle cream sauce--my favorite!..."
Peace,
Hangdog
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
<xyd...@NOSPAMEVER.my-dejanews.com> writes:
> If you truly believe Burned Fur isn't a hate group, then surely you
> can tell me which of those words---"hate" or "group"---doesn't
> apply. That should be pretty easy, right?
Hmmm, words are put together so that they are more than just the sum of their
parts. You could look up the words 'National", "Socialist", and "Party"
seperately, and it wouldn't give you a clue about what "Nazi" REALLY means.
Your point about calling Burned Fur a "Hate Group" is not only disingenuous,
but detracts from the horror of real "Hate Groups" like Aryan Nation and the
KKK.
And it's funny, you both ADVISE them to change their public image, and ALSO
criticise them for it. I think there's a word for that....
> Oh, wait... I remember this tactic... it's called "divide and
> conquer", right? I seem to recall Rich Chandler using the same sort
> of strategy to try to get the folks on ALF fighting against each
> other...
Moi? I don't think so. But I did expose the deep cracks that were constantly
being plastered over by the folks I referred to as the "Happiness Partrol".
--
The greatest tragedy is that the same species that achieved space flight,
a cure for polio, and the transistor, is also featured nightly on COPS.
-- Richard Chandler
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
Vit...@webtv.net
David Formosa
[...]
>Why are people surprised when others are disturbed & concerned by someone's
>indignant assertion that they are not, in fact, a human being but rather some
>kind of exotic & exciting creature trapped in 'mere' human form? (&, as Squee
>deftly points out, it is *always* something exciting & exotic, like a tiger
>or wolf or dragon.
Dommestic feline seems to be a very popular choose, and so dose the
verious breeds of dog. I don't consider these as exotic. And what
would you day to a platypus exotic or not?
> It's never, for instance, a lamprey or a deer tick.) Is
>this any more credible an assertion than someone claiming to be Napoleon or
>the most recent incarnation of Jesus?
Or the assertion that a virgin gave birth?
[...]
> It's the implied connection between the two that bothers me.
>
>In fact, I very much resent the connotation.
Then why don't you attack the people that make the connection? Rather
then saying how dreadfull this people are talk about how furrydome is
a diverse comminity and the option of one member shouldn't reflect on
the others. You seem conntent to do this within your ranks.
Lemu...@hotmail.com
Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
> Lemurzuli, whenever we get together, I owe you a drink. In fact, I owe you
> several.
Zowie! Free Slurpees! {;
> *Damn,* that was magnificent! Thank you.
Hey, thanks yerself.
> Peace,
>
> --Hangdog
>
>
--
--Ezuli
http://members.xoom.com/Ezuli
"I once shot a man just to watch him die. Then I got distracted, and
missed it." --Dave Foley
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Lemu...@hotmail.com
> Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
> ><something I couldn't say better in a million years regrettably snipped>
> >
> >*Damn,* that was magnificent! Thank you.
> Since Lemurzuli included the obligatory uncomprehending slam against those
> who are exploring admittedly unusual (in the United States, anyway) paths
> of spirituality,
Please quote me on that? I did no such thing. I referred to individuals who
operate under the delusion that they are mis-born non-human creatures
residing in human bodies. How this relates to spiritualism in any way evades
me. I refrain from expounding on my thoughts regarding the rationale behind
such notions, however I will put forth this thought: were there any such
being to exist, I sincerely doubt that it would be much inclined to
participate in human discourse, much less, fercryinoutloud, Usenet.
> can either of you explain how your participation in
> Burned Fur differs from someone who would go around saying something like
> "You're damned to Hell for not believing in Jesus"?
Yes.
The fact that you cannot distinguish the difference here is, in my opinion, a
point of concern.
It's not about religion, either of the established sort or the "make it up as
you go along" variety.
It's not, in my mind at least, a "for or against" scenario. Burned Furs are
not witnessing & recruiting & trying to "reprogram" yas. They're just doing
their own thing, making their own space, putting forth their own thoughts &
impressions much as anyone else. What, exactly, is the implied threat?
It's a fandom, folks. The condition of your immortal soul is not & should not
be an issue here, though with the degree of indignant rhetoric that's been
flying back & forth here, you'd *think* it was. {;
Why is this such a big scary thing?
David Formosa
>
>> If you don't think that its a hate group then convince me, I am
>> willing to have my belifes challinged, in fact I live for it. Please
>> show me how the Burnt fur memovement is a parradon of vertue and is
>> not a group that is based on hate.
>
>OK. First, the founder of the movement, Squee Rat, a black female
>college student,
Unfortunily no race (or gender) lacks the ability to hate [1].
> is an avowed pacifist. Go to her site [...]
>You will find a great deal of anger in both--but no calls for violence.
I've re-read for the 3rd (or 4th time) thouse documents and I consider
them filled with anger yes, the anger is fuled by hatrid, intolorence
and ignorence. Much of what squees says are missunderstandings or
even strate out inaccurieses.
Indeed some of the staments don't seem logical to me, plushyphiles
are worce then zoophilies?
[...]
> But I strive
>to be *genuinely* open-minded, which in this case means trying to read
>and understand things with which I might disagree. Are you willing to do
>the same?
Yes thats why I read the burned fur thing over a few times, (BTW why
BURNED rather then BURNT), would I suggest you read the ALF FAQ as
well, I would be intersted in your comotry about it.
>(BTW, consider the following three words: Blumrich, Jew, Nazi;
>"o/~ One of these things is not like the others,
>one of these things does not belong...o/~" For those who
>don't get the joke: do you think a guy named Blumrich would
>have *anything* to do with Nazism, other than to oppose it?
>Sheesh...)
It is an unfortunite fact of histroy that there have been jewish
members of both Nazis and Neo-Nazi groups.
[...]
>As for showing you Burned Fur is a paragon of virtue--that is not
>necessary, as I've said.
Don't I get to make use of hyperboly as well?
[...]
>> What do you think I'm doing here?
>
>Huh? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you meant by that.
I mean, my activerty here is the way I'm acting against what I
consider a hate group.
[...]
>> Or (c) don't think that the SPLC is not the approprate way of dealing
>> with this.
>
>I agree with you there, but not for your reasons :o) The Southern
>Poverty Law Center tracks hate group activity nationwide, and
>does a damned fine job of it, too.
Thay seem to be focusted on antygay and racial hatrid. This is an
antyplushifile/lifestyler hate group, I don't know if thay would even
understand what I'm on about[2].
[...]
>Of course, you may be too embarassed to mention such
>silly things to a group whose work is deadly serious.
I don't consider furry lifestylisum to be a silly thing, it is the
closest thing I currently have to a religious viewpoint.
[1] Apart from Vulcans, but thay don't exist.
[2] Sometimes I don't understand what I'm going on about.
--
Lemu...@hotmail.com
marm...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu wrote in response to some stuff I said:
> Beautifully put. Thank you.
>
> -MMM-
>
Well, thanks right back! {;
Lemu...@hotmail.com
dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa) wrote:
> In article <743uoh$rc$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Lemu...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >Why are people surprised when others are disturbed & concerned by someone's
> >indignant assertion that they are not, in fact, a human being but rather some
> >kind of exotic & exciting creature trapped in 'mere' human form? (&, as Squee
> >deftly points out, it is *always* something exciting & exotic, like a tiger
> >or wolf or dragon.
>
> Dommestic feline seems to be a very popular choose, and so dose the
> verious breeds of dog. I don't consider these as exotic. And what
> would you day to a platypus exotic or not?
How peculiar. It brings to mind the question, does a cat know it is a cat, or
does a dog know it is a dog? Would a dog know its own *breed*? If a cat
raised among dogs imagines itself to all appearances to be a dog, why should
an animal in human guise be any different?
> > It's never, for instance, a lamprey or a deer tick.) Is
> >this any more credible an assertion than someone claiming to be Napoleon or
> >the most recent incarnation of Jesus?
>
> Or the assertion that a virgin gave birth?
*Exactly!* How splendid that we are following the same lines of thought.
Miracles being the rare & much-heralded phenomena that they are, chances are
*very* poor that a person asserting to be a miracle incarnate is telling the
truth, especially sans evidence, especially sans Profound Message For All
Humanity etc. I sincerely doubt that profound spiritual messages are to be
found within the ranks of furry fandom. No offense, y'all. It's just this
feeling I have.
> [...]
>
> > It's the implied connection between the two that bothers me.
> >
> >In fact, I very much resent the connotation.
>
> Then why don't you attack the people that make the connection?
I haven't attacked anyone. I have alluded to the behaviors of certain people
in, I think, a non-confrontational manner. & very often it is the people
exhibinting these behaviors who consciously & deliberately align their
activities to furry fandom.
> Rather
> then saying how dreadfull
I haven't called anyone dreadful.
> this people are talk about how furrydome is
> a diverse comminity
You know, it's okay to not love everybody. It's okay to not accept all
behaviors. Diversity is grand but so is discretion.
> and the option of one member shouldn't reflect on
> the others.
That's for damn sure......in an ideal world. But there's no reason to have to
go making excuses for those who can't mind their own manners, & who get their
jollies tweaking off the "straight" folks. I often wonder if part of the
appeal is the "I'm so unique! Notice me!" factor.
> You seem conntent to do this within your ranks.
...maybe the issue to show otherwise just hasn't come up yet {;
> --
> Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
> http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
the_use...@my-dejanews.com
ark...@istar.ca wrote:
> On 2 Dec 1998 05:43:11 GMT, rola...@aol.com (RolanFox) wrote:
>
> >>
> >>*ahem*
> >>
> >>Labels suck.
> >>
> >
> >Except when you are buying non-fat frozen hershey toffee crunch ice cream bars.
> > I mean without the label who knows WHAT your buying.
>
> Fhaolan grins, "Even *with* tha' label, sometimes..." ;)
>
> -Fhaolan, former Chemical Engineer who prefers *not* to read the
> ingredients most of the time....
"Nevertheless, I advise you in future to replace the words 'Crunchy Frog'
with the legend 'Crunchy, Raw, Unboned, Real DEAD FROG' if you want to avoid
criminal prosecution!!! "
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
mok...@hotmail.com
ak...@teleport.com wrote:
> Probably pointless arguing with you. You are a dedicated advocate to
> your cause, and you know in your own heart that you can do no wrong in
> the support of your cause, no matter what you end up doing.
Boy, that sounds a little like.. a religious fanatic! You go, Akai.
b.root,
who would be better off keeping his damn mouth shut.
mok...@hotmail.com
n...@spam.please (Tatter_D) wrote:
> This is why, as long as Eric Blumrich is a member of the group, I have no real
> worries about the Burned Fur movement. He's nowhere near subtle enough or
> clever enough to manage a successful hate group, let alone start an actual
> jihad, regardless of how hard he tries. <grin>
Eric Blumrich frowns on subtlety and cleverness. It's starting to bother me.
b.root