Reinventing SqueeRat
Richard de Wylfin
--
"The gods are just and of our pleasant vices make instruments to
plague us." --Wm. Shakespeare, commenting on furry fandom in -King
Lear-.
Farlo
> http://www.ironcircus.com/index.php?content=bio
Maybe she will be a nice person someday?
--
Farlo, the Urban Fey Dragon
"Not content to remain a blockhead."
Michael Hirtes
Farlo <hall...@att.net> wrote:
> ration...@yahoo.com (Richard de Wylfin) wrote:
> > http://www.ironcircus.com/index.php?content=bio
>
> Maybe she will be a nice person someday?
Still waiting for you to be one yourself.
Farlo
> Still waiting for you to be one yourself.
Oh, I'm touched.
Paul R. Bennett
Tell me?
Feel all cuddly, all superior.
Sigh...
Ummm....
Maybe postings like this is what drives me to go up to the Darwin Awards
web page, and hope.
Again sigh...
Ever hear of something called "Kharma", or the "Three fold way."
Howsa 'bout taking it to heart?
Paul
Akai
"Richard de Wylfin" <ration...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rationalbeing-2...@pm1-22.hoosier.net...
Funny, I was wondering what she's been up to just yesterday. I've really
enjoyed her art on Yerf, too bad none of it is available anymore. Nice to
see her posting something again.
--Akai
Jason Murdock
> ration...@yahoo.com (Richard de Wylfin) wrote:
> > http://www.ironcircus.com/index.php?content=bio
>
> Maybe she will be a nice person someday?
Actually, from having had a couple conversations with her she is a
rather cool person.
Griffure
Pffff...
Well drawn. It is good to see characters which are a bit fat.
Griffure
Ben Raccoon
news:4d41c746.03080...@posting.google.com:
Surprisingly enough, I agree. I ran into her at her booth at Comic-Con.
--
Ben Raccoon
http://www.secretmoon.org/~ben
more...@greatweed.com
> http://www.ironcircus.com/index.php?content=bio
How about that? She was in Chicago the whole time, and I never even got to meet her.
Pity, I'm sure we'd have a ball trading tales of the LAFFables.
Baboo!
jokingly) "history" of the furry fandom is now staunchly
self-seperated and happens to be a female minority. Honestly, how many
black women do you think are furries these days?
She crops up on Something Awful occaisonally to bless us with her sob
stories about her family and on-again-off-again art career. The goons
are only too eager to pay ear time based on her history and talent.
Her good traits - aside from her art - don't show up on the forums too
well - she portrays herself as the archetypal "RAEG AGANST TEH
MACHENE" art gal who nobody understands.
I'm sure she's a fascinating individual, once you get over the
SqueeRat business. Seriously. Think of the stories she's got to tell.
I'm pretty sure I'm going to regret posting this message.
Jason Murdock
> An oddity, really. A person so deeply mired in the (and I say this
> jokingly) "history" of the furry fandom is now staunchly
> self-seperated and happens to be a female minority. Honestly, how many
> black women do you think are furries these days?
Women in general are starting to filter more into this fandom. Should
be interesting to see what comes about in the next couple years.
> I'm sure she's a fascinating individual, once you get over the
> SqueeRat business. Seriously. Think of the stories she's got to tell.
I'm sure her's are no more interesting then anyone else's. She's just
had to put up with more BS because of people trying to take her
thoughts and twisting them into their own BS.
I look at Burned Furs a lot like Christianity. People took what was a
good idea and twisted it to their own ends. Anyone could call
themselves a Christian and anyone could call themselves a Burned Fur.
jason creature murdock
Ken Pick
> good idea and twisted it to their own ends. Anyone could call
> themselves a Christian and anyone could call themselves a Burned Fur.
There is one major difference. I don't think Christianity ever got
deliberately torpedoed by its founder out of sheer nastiness. Burned
Fur did.
Squee (who now goes psycho if you call her by that name) started
Burned Fur, attracted a lot of followers (like me) for whom her
manifesto put into words their own uneasiness & suspicions about their
fandom, and later turned on them and sabotaged her own movement,
apparently on a whim.
Burned Fur also had little or nothing to do with "Born-again
Christians aiming to Censor & Destroy Our Fandom". Squee purged all
the obvious Christians first off. I survived to the final blowup only
by being an observer-mode Stealth Christian.
Squee's little whim & tantrum ended up with a lot of collateral
damage. Burned Fur has now become a bogeyman, the "Vast Right-wing
Conspiracy" or "Protocol of the Elders of Zion" of the fandom,
invoking a furry-specific Godwin's Law: Just denounce someone who
disagrees with you as "A Burned Fur" or "One of those Burned Furs".
No more is needed; you have just discredited them forever. Like
"Nazi", "Racist", and "Homophobe!", accusing someone of being a Burned
Fur is our own little Politically-Correct protected form of hate
speech.
Burned Fur is right. Now burned by Burned Fur as well.
Ryu
attention and trying to gather followers and sycophants. When it
started getting weird[er than normal], Squee left.
Those who don't like Squee Rat can take comfort in the fact that
whenever anyone types the name "Charla Trotman" into Google, a ton of
garbage about the Burned Furs comes up. No matter what she does in the
future, the past Burned Fur stupidity will forever be linked to her
name.
In article <9efdce3a.03080...@posting.google.com>, Ken Pick
Ostrich
>
> Burned Fur also had little or nothing to do with "Born-again
> Christians aiming to Censor & Destroy Our Fandom".
Rather an understatement, if one goes by
http://www.google.com/groups?q=blaspheme-off+group:alt.fan.furry&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=843eob%24cpq%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&rnum=3
And I have to agree with the other posters that there's little point
in her 'going ballistic' if she's called Squee. You google on 'Charla
Trotman', you're gonna learn all about SqueeRat and the Burned Furs.
-Ostrich! <")
RHJunior
> good idea and twisted it to their own ends. Anyone could call
> themselves a Christian and anyone could call themselves a Burned Fur.
Oh puhleeze. The woman self-destructed. She had all the interpersonal skills
and charm of a tasmanian devil with herpes, and she snapped and frothed at
everyone around her, friend and foe alike.
"Christ figure" my rampant rosy red ass.
Akai
"RHJunior" <blu...@ntelos.net> wrote in message
news:TqHXa.1961$jq....@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
I still remember the chat log that you posted where she and her friends
turned on you. Just plain vicious. If it wasn't for their internal problems
the BF's might have amounted to something good.
--Akai
Martin Skunk
news:2AKXa.950$Q63....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> I still remember the chat log that you posted where she and her friends
> turned on you. Just plain vicious. If it wasn't for their internal
problems
> the BF's might have amounted to something good.
>
The Burned Furs' movement was based on good, legitimate premises.
The idea was good, and the purpose seemed valid, and this is why they
attracted so much attention and support on the first moments.
However, the way some of them acted, and the little help they got
from some of their elements that took the BF movement as a crusade was their
doom. You see, some of them seemed to have serious mental illnesses, and
that didn't help their image (nor furry fandom's). And it's a shame, because
their points were valid.
It's been years since all of that happened, and it's been years
since I've heard of SqueeRat. I'd suggest you to let the ghosts of the past
sleep, and if she wants to go ahead and live her own life, she's on her
right. Besides, it's not our concern anymore.
---Martin Skunk
Ken Pick
> Burned Fur's creation was just another Big Ego in Furry fandom needing
> attention and trying to gather followers and sycophants. When it
> started getting weird[er than normal], Squee left.
>
> Those who don't like Squee Rat can take comfort in the fact that
> whenever anyone types the name "Charla Trotman" into Google, a ton of
> garbage about the Burned Furs comes up. No matter what she does in the
> future, the past Burned Fur stupidity will forever be linked to her
> name.
First of all, what was so stupid about wanting your creatures of the
imagination to Transcend the Animal instead of rutting like animals?
Like we need another pet fuck-toy species in this fandom...
Second, since "Charla" or "Chuck" or whatever she's calling herself
these days can't stand to be called "Squee Rat", how about always
referring to her by that name? Including in any correspondence to
her...
Ken Pick
And with the moderates (i.e. Traitors, Crimethinkers, and
Doubleplusungood Goldsteinists) purged, all that was left was the
crazies. And all that is left now is CrushYiffDestroy, MHirtes, and
all the other "FURRY! WE HATES IT! WE HATES IT FOREVER!!!!!" types.
Karl Meyer
"Ken Pick" <cath...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9efdce3a.03080...@posting.google.com...
> jtmu...@yahoo.com (Jason Murdock) wrote in message
news:<4d41c746.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> > ba...@dotcult.com (Baboo!) wrote in message
news:<61f05fb9.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> damage. Burned Fur has now become a bogeyman, the "Vast Right-wing
> Conspiracy" or "Protocol of the Elders of Zion" of the fandom,
> invoking a furry-specific Godwin's Law:
Burned Fur has become nothing. Even at it's pinacle, most of the fans had
never heard of it. Now it's relagated to obscure history with even fewer
remembering it. The only time it gets mention is around here when somebody
wants to take a few more swings with a squeeky hammer at a very dead horse.
Just denounce someone who
> disagrees with you as "A Burned Fur" or "One of those Burned Furs".
> No more is needed; you have just discredited them forever.
You have just shown how lame and uncreative you are since you can't come up
with something a bit more currently relevant to beat them with.
Squee always had a rather twisted sense of humor. I bet she laughed her ass
off when she dropped the trap to hang the group looking to her as a leader
out in the cold.
mouse
> attention and trying to gather followers and sycophants. When it
> started getting weird[er than normal], Squee left.
>
> Those who don't like Squee Rat can take comfort in the fact that
> whenever anyone types the name "Charla Trotman" into Google, a ton of
> garbage about the Burned Furs comes up. No matter what she does in the
> future, the past Burned Fur stupidity will forever be linked to her
> name.
>
Afflicted Past
--------------
Hatred evokes the memories that make your blood run cold.
Fear and sorrow push you away from yourself.
[chorus]
How can you face the world? When you can't face the mirror.
How can you leave your past? With blood on your hands?
Can you run away all your life? Can you escape your punishment?
How many times can you start it all again?
How many lies will it take to cover your tracks?
[chorus]
No matter how far you go Those days are right behind.
The facade of your perfect life. Cannot hide your afflicted past.
There is no escape.
track6 from hatebreed's first album "satisfaction is the death of
desire"
i just found it exceptionally appropriate
i wouldnt have had a prob with the burned furs or squee rat (other
than all the shit she pulled on her own group apperently)
i just find the fact that she "freaks out" when she is called squee
rat and tries to hide from her past - fucking pathetic ...not an
admirable trait, far as im concerned
her current stuff looks cool though
change "afflicted" to "furry" and call it a filk song
Ostrich
> First of all, what was so stupid about wanting your creatures of the
> imagination to Transcend the Animal instead of rutting like animals?
> Like we need another pet fuck-toy species in this fandom...
Had they defined themselves in that fashion, I think Burned Fur might
have become a respected group. If they ever made efforts to encourage
their members to improve themselves, or to hold their own conduct to a
higher standard than that of others, it wasn't apparent from the
outside. The goal seemed to be the creation of strife and discord,
rather than change. The outcome was probably inevitable, given the
nature of Squee's "manifesto". When you use intolerance of others as
a recruiting tool, you have very little chance of producing an
organization that's directed toward self-improvement.
I always had this strong perception too that a lot of the BFs
implicitly assumed that the fandom existed primarily as a means to
support artists and help them turn pro. I think this underlay a lot
of their anger towards fans who didn't conduct themselves in a
'professional' manner. It seemed to be a common complaint of BF that
fans weren't considering what effect furridom's image might have on
the future art careers of BF members. They saw it as a sort of
betrayal - the fans weren't filling the role that they were 'supposed'
to.
>
> Second, since "Charla" or "Chuck" or whatever she's calling herself
> these days can't stand to be called "Squee Rat", how about always
> referring to her by that name? Including in any correspondence to
> her...
I think 'Squee Rat' and 'Charla Trotman' are pretty much
interchangeable anymore. It's not like I (or most) have the least
intention of writing her anyway.
-Ostrich! <")
Richard de Wylfin
"Akai" <ak...@teleport.com> wrote:
Bingo!
http://web.archive.org/web/19991006182639/http://www.yerf.com/trotchar/
(Don't worry if the thumbnails don't load. The files are there.)
New alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe products on Cafeshops:
http://www.cafeshops.com/jotandcomma
RHJunior
"Ostrich" <ost...@raex.com> wrote in message
news:c6752e89.0308...@posting.google.com...
> cath...@earthlink.net (Ken Pick) wrote in message
news:<9efdce3a.03080...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > First of all, what was so stupid about wanting your creatures of the
> > imagination to Transcend the Animal instead of rutting like animals?
> > Like we need another pet fuck-toy species in this fandom...
>
> Had they defined themselves in that fashion, I think Burned Fur might
> have become a respected group.
They did. Everyone ELSE, however, defined them as prudes, Nazis, homophobes,
and even (eeek!) Southern Baptists.
If they ever made efforts to encourage
> their members to improve themselves, or to hold their own conduct to a
> higher standard than that of others, it wasn't apparent from the
> outside. The goal seemed to be the creation of strife and discord,
> rather than change. The outcome was probably inevitable, given the
> nature of Squee's "manifesto".
When you use intolerance of others as
TWEEEEET!
Okay, monkeybutt, 30 yard penalty for gratuitous use of a PC bullshit
term... "Intolerance." Just in case it's never occurred to you, **there are
things in this world which should never, ever be tolerated.**
The fandom, the forums, the conventions were all turned into cesspits by the
doctrine of "Tolerance for tolerance's sake." EVERYTHING was tolerated...
till the whole fandom became utterly intolerable.
> a recruiting tool, you have very little chance of producing an
> organization that's directed toward self-improvement.
>
FYI, the Burned Furs did make occasional efforts towards those ends---
attempts at communal art projects, ice cream fundraisers for charitable
organizations, and the like.
But the aforementioned leadership gap led to those efforts dwindling away.
> I always had this strong perception too that a lot of the BFs
> implicitly assumed that the fandom existed primarily as a means to
> support artists and help them turn pro.
I think this underlay a lot
> of their anger towards fans who didn't conduct themselves in a
> 'professional' manner.
No, the *fandom* assumed that *artists* existed solely to ceaselessly crank
out free banana-whack material... but that was a separate issue.
The Burned Furs--- at least the artists in it-- didn't view the fandom as a
stepping stool into an art career. Frankly, most viewed it as a dead end. It
was just something they did **because they liked drawing furry art--** but
were finding it impossible to do because of a bunch of worthless food-tubes
running rampant in the fandom.
And it wasn't just artists who were griping about "career problems." It was
fans who were called 'pigfuckers' by former friends; it was would-be
convention goers whose families learned about the depravities at the
conventions and forbade them to go; it was hobbyists who couldn't tell their
friends about their hobby because their friends would associate them with
freaks they'd seen on MTV; it was older siblings and aunts and uncles and
parents who couldn't let their kid brothers and sisters and nieces and
nephews and children in on the fun of the anthro fandom because of the
people turning it into a shitpile.
It was ordinary people, **fans**, who were being called freaks, perverts and
worse because other people calling themselves "furries" went out in public
and acted like either barking moonbats or rutting bonobo chimps.
It was people who were being thrown out of their own fandom by people who
insisted they had to tolerate behavior that any other corner of civilization
would have greeted with pitchforks and torches.
The administrations running the conventions, thank God, finally figured out
that this crap was kicking them in the balls, and yanked the reins in hard.
With the departure of Mark Merlino, a lot of this dwindled as well.
Burned Fur dissolved of its own internal strife. But don't believe for a
minute that the people who were in it simply ceased to exist. Provoke the
fans long enough, and something like Burned Fur will coalesce again. And
probably bigger, meaner, and nastier than it was last time.
To those who want to treat the furry fandom like their personal toilet.....I
recommend you tread lightly.
--
RHJunior
"What was that sound?"
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
-Dilbert
http://home.ntelos.net/~blue27a
http://nipandtuck.keenspace.com
http://UTLT.keenspace.com
http://NPC.keenspace.com
Akai
"Richard de Wylfin" <thetal...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:thetalkingfox-D38...@velox.critter.net...
> In article <AMqWa.29851$Mc.23...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Akai" <ak...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> > "Richard de Wylfin" <ration...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:rationalbeing-2...@pm1-22.hoosier.net...
> > > http://www.ironcircus.com/index.php?content=bio
> > >
> > > --
> > > "The gods are just and of our pleasant vices make instruments to
> > > plague us." --Wm. Shakespeare, commenting on furry fandom in -King
> > > Lear-.
> >
> > Funny, I was wondering what she's been up to just yesterday. I've really
> > enjoyed her art on Yerf, too bad none of it is available anymore. Nice
to
> > see her posting something again.
> >
> > --Akai
> >
> >
>
> Bingo!
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/19991006182639/http://www.yerf.com/trotchar/
>
> (Don't worry if the thumbnails don't load. The files are there.)
Mind if I worship you for a while? Thanks!
--Akai
Richard de Wylfin
"Akai" <ak...@teleport.com> wrote:
> "Richard de Wylfin" <thetal...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
> news:thetalkingfox-D38...@velox.critter.net...
> > In article <AMqWa.29851$Mc.23...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > "Akai" <ak...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Richard de Wylfin" <ration...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:rationalbeing-2...@pm1-22.hoosier.net...
> > > > http://www.ironcircus.com/index.php?content=bio
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > "The gods are just and of our pleasant vices make instruments to
> > > > plague us." --Wm. Shakespeare, commenting on furry fandom in -King
> > > > Lear-.
> > >
> > > Funny, I was wondering what she's been up to just yesterday. I've really
> > > enjoyed her art on Yerf, too bad none of it is available anymore. Nice
> to
> > > see her posting something again.
> > >
> > > --Akai
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Bingo!
> >
> > http://web.archive.org/web/19991006182639/http://www.yerf.com/trotchar/
> >
> > (Don't worry if the thumbnails don't load. The files are there.)
>
> Mind if I worship you for a while? Thanks!
>
> --Akai
>
>
Sure! You're welcome!
Karl Meyer
>
> "Ostrich" <ost...@raex.com> wrote in message
> news:c6752e89.0308...@posting.google.com...
> > cath...@earthlink.net (Ken Pick) wrote in message
> news:<9efdce3a.03080...@posting.google.com>...
out
> that this crap was kicking them in the balls, and yanked the reins in
hard.
> With the departure of Mark Merlino, a lot of this dwindled as well.
Actually, they'd figured it out years before Burned Fur came into existance.
By the time the BF was ranting about conventions, the problems were already
pretty much fixed thus leaving the BF complaints as just so many farts in
the wind. For the most part, the ones running the conventions have done a
lot more to help turn things around than the BF's ever did, because the BF's
never actually did anything but run their mouths (and they weren't even very
good at that).
> Burned Fur dissolved of its own internal strife. But don't believe for a
> minute that the people who were in it simply ceased to exist. Provoke the
> fans long enough, and something like Burned Fur will coalesce again. And
> probably bigger, meaner, and nastier than it was last time.
Oh no, not bigger, you mean more than like 10 people? Sure the membership
list was larger, but most of them never did anything other than get
themselves added to said list.
Ken Pick
> "Ostrich" <ost...@raex.com> wrote in message
> news:c6752e89.0308...@posting.google.com...
> If they ever made efforts to encourage
> > their members to improve themselves, or to hold their own conduct to a
> > higher standard than that of others, it wasn't apparent from the
> > outside. The goal seemed to be the creation of strife and discord,
> > rather than change. The outcome was probably inevitable, given the
> > nature of Squee's "manifesto".
>
> When you use intolerance of others as
>
> TWEEEEET!
> Okay, monkeybutt, 30 yard penalty for gratuitous use of a PC bullshit
> term... "Intolerance."
You missed the obvious oxymororn -- being Tolerant of everything
implies being intolerant of Intolerance. It's like that
Christian-bashing bumper sticker I saw in Mauch Chunk the week after
AC: "STOP RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY! GET RID OF ALL THE CHRISTIANS!" (It
wasn't just Xians who pointed out the paradox in that little
statement...)
> > a recruiting tool, you have very little chance of producing an
> > organization that's directed toward self-improvement.
>
> FYI, the Burned Furs did make occasional efforts towards those ends---
> attempts at communal art projects, ice cream fundraisers for charitable
> organizations, and the like.
> But the aforementioned leadership gap led to those efforts dwindling away.
I met one of my co-writers (who's shaping up as collaborator on
what'll be my first novel) at a BF party a couple AnthroCons ago...
> > I always had this strong perception too that a lot of the BFs
> > implicitly assumed that the fandom existed primarily as a means to
> > support artists and help them turn pro.
> I think this underlay a lot
> > of their anger towards fans who didn't conduct themselves in a
> > 'professional' manner.
>
> No, the *fandom* assumed that *artists* existed solely to ceaselessly crank
> out free banana-whack material... but that was a separate issue.
I don't know which was worse -- the fanboys jonesing for YIFF! or the
fanboys DEMANDING the artist do it for free. The wankers or the
mooches.
One semi-pro artist I know of took email flames from fanboys who
Demanded he Put His Art up on his Website So They "Could Download It
For Free!" (their exact words).
> The Burned Furs--- at least the artists in it-- didn't view the fandom as a
> stepping stool into an art career. Frankly, most viewed it as a dead end. It
> was just something they did **because they liked drawing furry art--** but
> were finding it impossible to do because of a bunch of worthless food-tubes
> running rampant in the fandom.
It is a dead end. Look at the size of the market -- maybe about
10,000 furfans total in the US, a lot of those who won't pay for art
if they can find a way to bootleg it for FREE! Listen to 2 the
Ranting Gryphon's "Art Fans" for an ear-searing description of the
phenomenon. (His "Animal Spirits" rant -- about all the Astral Spirit
Yiffy-Poos trapped in those EEEEVIL Hy00man bodies -- is also great,
and his "Gay Pride" rant also applies to a lot of fanboy antics.)
I have always been vocal about mainstreaming as much as possible.
Even the main SF & Fantasy fan markets are much larger than Furry
Fandom; you want a customer base of 10,000 max, or one of 100,000+ who
are more likely to pay you money for your art/writing?
> And it wasn't just artists who were griping about "career problems." It was
> fans who were called 'pigfuckers' by former friends; it was would-be
> convention goers whose families learned about the depravities at the
> conventions and forbade them to go; it was hobbyists who couldn't tell their
> friends about their hobby because their friends would associate them with
> freaks they'd seen on MTV; it was older siblings and aunts and uncles and
> parents who couldn't let their kid brothers and sisters and nieces and
> nephews and children in on the fun of the anthro fandom because of the
> people turning it into a shitpile.
In many ways, it was like the Satanic Panic hysteria over D&D that I
went through around 1980 or so, except more intense and in-your-face.
> It was ordinary people, **fans**, who were being called freaks, perverts and
> worse because other people calling themselves "furries" went out in public
> and acted like either barking moonbats or rutting bonobo chimps.
My gamer buds kept calling Confurence "FagCon"...
> It was people who were being thrown out of their own fandom by people who
> insisted they had to tolerate behavior that any other corner of civilization
> would have greeted with pitchforks and torches.
>
> The administrations running the conventions, thank God, finally figured out
> that this crap was kicking them in the balls, and yanked the reins in hard.
> With the departure of Mark Merlino, a lot of this dwindled as well.
I (and Eric Blumrich, remember him?) both credit Mustelid Mark with
being a major factor in the Furry = Kinky image. Mark was pretty much
the founder of SoCal furry fandom as a separate genre & organized the
first CFs; then his own instabilities and escapades made him one of
his own fandom's biggest liabilities.
> Burned Fur dissolved of its own internal strife. But don't believe for a
> minute that the people who were in it simply ceased to exist. Provoke the
> fans long enough, and something like Burned Fur will coalesce again. And
> probably bigger, meaner, and nastier than it was last time.
You're already seeing signs of it -- a "FURRY! WE HATES IT! WE HATES
IT FOREVER!!!!" attitude. And in venues more mainstream and
respectable than the Beavises & Buttheads on POE or Hirtes' flames on
a.f.f.
Yesterday I found (and promptly lost the URL to) a Web page with an
interesting quote. (From Memory; I know this is not completely
accurate):
"When legitimate criticism is forced underground, it surfaces much
later, fermented into Fascist violence."
"Fascist" has a specific meaning, boyos, and it's a lot uglier than
"Anybody who tells me I can't do ANYTHING I WANNA DO AND I WANNA DO IT
NOW NOW NOW!"
Ostrich
>
> You missed the obvious oxymororn -- being Tolerant of everything
> implies being intolerant of Intolerance.
That's undoubtedly true, but it doesn't really address my point. When
you found an organization on the premise that everything wrong is the
Goldsteinists' fault, there's little to no chance that the group is
going to become an agent for any kind of actual reform, either
internal or external.
-Ostrich! <")
mouse
> cath...@earthlink.net (Ken Pick) wrote in message news:<9efdce3a.03080...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > First of all, what was so stupid about wanting your creatures of the
> > imagination to Transcend the Animal instead of rutting like animals?
> > Like we need another pet fuck-toy species in this fandom...
> I always had this strong perception too that a lot of the BFs
> implicitly assumed that the fandom existed primarily as a means to
> support artists and help them turn pro. I think this underlay a lot
> of their anger towards fans who didn't conduct themselves in a
> 'professional' manner. It seemed to be a common complaint of BF that
> fans weren't considering what effect furridom's image might have on
> the future art careers of BF members. They saw it as a sort of
> betrayal - the fans weren't filling the role that they were 'supposed'
> to.
>
> -Ostrich! <")
exactly ! thats what the BFs should have done, and should have went
through with - to completion. and i never thought id hear it here of
all places either
too bad your on the wrong end of that statement, ostrich, i thought
there was hope for you.
alienating the animation studios and the comic industry and every
other fucking person on the planet was the dumbest mistake furrys ever
made. you want to know why people didnt used to care as much about
furry, or at least didnt recoil in horror from it? what it produced
was included in the mainstream
i wasnt even around for it and its obvious
look at the comics in the 80s, there was no bad press, if anything
some people just didnt like funny-animals ...so what. those titles
were mixed in with EVERYTHING else, that just aint the case anymore.
and it takes more than a few porn comic titles and some nasty art to
do that too. "omaha" didnt damage the genre - you guys fucked
yourselves over with your own bizarre disturbing behaviour...you could
have had at least the common courtesy to stop and consider that
comics, cartooning and art would have been some people's (furries)
goals, or livelihood. but thats not as important as what you wanna
jerk off to or "yiff", huh?? whos "going pro" from within furry now?
anyone? how many of a given furry comic issue is sold? 2000-4000? am i
shooting way too high with those numbers? if you like this shit so
much (i do) , why on earth would you ever make it unacceptable to be
produced, other than by furry-owned or at the very least sympathetic
publishers, or to make people steer clear of it entirely??
fuckin boneheads
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
The Thu, 7 Aug 2003 01:00:37 -0700, RHJunior <blu...@ntelos.net> wrote:
>> Had they defined themselves in that fashion, I think Burned Fur might
>> have become a respected group.
>
> They did. Everyone ELSE, however, defined them as prudes, Nazis, homophobes,
> and even (eeek!) Southern Baptists.
Being respected means having the respect of non-members as well as
members. Burned Fur never had this. They just spouted mhirtes Brand
Crap(tm) and was comprised of people who were far too extreme to be
taken seriously.
The whole premise of the group was to try and stamp out a problem
largely unheard of outside furry before that. You think Something
Awful would have found anything furry noteworthy before the Burned
Furs made a lot of noise and drew attention to what they were against?
The Burned Furs have only themselves to blame for the negative
attention the fandom has recieved since then.
> Okay, monkeybutt, 30 yard penalty for gratuitous use of a PC bullshit
> term...
I'm going to call a 30 yard penalty against you, here. Calling
someone "PC" is the political equivilent of calling someone a nazi
online.
> FYI, the Burned Furs did make occasional efforts towards those ends---
> attempts at communal art projects, ice cream fundraisers for charitable
> organizations, and the like.
> But the aforementioned leadership gap led to those efforts dwindling away.
Leadership gap and a self-destructive Usenet blitz. They gave
themselves the kind The Burned Furs disappeared as a group because
people would rather deal with the fandom's problems than be associated
with that problem. The Burned Furs gave themselves the same kind of
PR problem McCarthy gave himself.
> No, the *fandom* assumed that *artists* existed solely to ceaselessly crank
> out free banana-whack material... but that was a separate issue.
And from the cons I've been to, I'm not entirely sure how people got
this misguided idea to begin with.
> The administrations running the conventions, thank God, finally figured out
> that this crap was kicking them in the balls, and yanked the reins in hard.
> With the departure of Mark Merlino, a lot of this dwindled as well.
I think the latter had everything to do with it. Looking through old
con reviews and con photos, if anything changed other than handling
the media, it's pretty well hidden. Between that and personal
experience, I think a lot of it was AFFers who had never been to any
cons bitching about experiences they never had.
> Burned Fur dissolved of its own internal strife.
Which was sort of apparent that it was going to happen the moment
Squee posted the manifesto.
> But don't believe for a minute that the people who were in it simply
> ceased to exist. Provoke the fans long enough, and something like
> Burned Fur will coalesce again. And probably bigger, meaner, and
> nastier than it was last time.
Could you name names? I want to get my filters set up for when the
wingnut extremists get stirred up again.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/M1dGsClmdIs2Ki8RArAHAJ0Q621dw4MSwVt22V1IonOLr8R87gCfZJj9
efs0Osr6dFA6hBbINYJUBH8=
=2dRO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
The Thu, 7 Aug 2003 10:28:17 -0500, Karl Meyer <fer...@rcn.com> wrote:
> For the most part, the ones running the conventions have done a
> lot more to help turn things around than the BF's ever did, because the BF's
> never actually did anything but run their mouths (and they weren't even very
> good at that).
Reminds me of Alan Connor on linux.debian.user or
muc.lists.debian.user right now. Absolutely no comprehension what
he's talking about.
> Oh no, not bigger, you mean more than like 10 people? Sure the membership
> list was larger, but most of them never did anything other than get
> themselves added to said list.
And then distance themselves from the group when they realised there
wasn't anybody willing to make an effort, much less a rational
argument.
If you're going to start a group to better the fandom, by all means,
go ahead and do it. But don't do it out of reactionary spite like the
Burned Furs did, or it will fail just like the Burned Furs did, and
probably faster this time around since people won't put up with it
again. Do it because you love the fandom and have a sense of goodwill
to all comers. This *will* take effort and money.
I think if any such group is going to form, it would gain it's goals
best as a service-oriented group. Some ideas:
Real leadership by someone with some vision, enthusiasm and a skin for
criticism.
Volunteer and sponsor family friendly conventions.
Help people find roommates and rides to cons, possibly sponsor people
who would otherwise be unable to attend.
Win hearts first, and people are much more likely to listen to your
message. The whole Burned Fur concept is flawed: You solve nothing
screaming at Usenet except make people avoid you at the cons.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/M1z2sClmdIs2Ki8RAuHpAJoCBbdG7IgKj4Cy6N0LiUCBpeJl3ACeLGEx
OhpoAJjNMu8Svb9kxmdxvR8=
=zKU8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Matt Harpold
> It is a dead end. Look at the size of the market -- maybe about
> 10,000 furfans total in the US, a lot of those who won't pay for art
> if they can find a way to bootleg it for FREE! Listen to 2 the
> Ranting Gryphon's "Art Fans" for an ear-searing description of the
> phenomenon. (His "Animal Spirits" rant -- about all the Astral Spirit
> Yiffy-Poos trapped in those EEEEVIL Hy00man bodies -- is also great,
> and his "Gay Pride" rant also applies to a lot of fanboy antics.)
Dude, 2 is as embarrassing as everyone else you're going on about. ;-)
> I have always been vocal about mainstreaming as much as possible.
> Even the main SF & Fantasy fan markets are much larger than Furry
> Fandom; you want a customer base of 10,000 max, or one of 100,000+ who
> are more likely to pay you money for your art/writing?
Nothing wrong with this, but some people like the "culture" of the fandom,
and see no need to look elsewhere.
> In many ways, it was like the Satanic Panic hysteria over D&D that I
> went through around 1980 or so, except more intense and in-your-face.
>
> > It was ordinary people, **fans**, who were being called freaks, perverts
and
> > worse because other people calling themselves "furries" went out in
public
> > and acted like either barking moonbats or rutting bonobo chimps.
>
> My gamer buds kept calling Confurence "FagCon"...
I've been to about a dozen furry cons, and at LEASt a dozen gaming cons, and
furries have NOTHING on gamers for nasty gross awfulness pound for pound. I
love gaming, I do art for game publishers, but shit, at least some furries
are easy on the eyes.
And I've been called a freak and a pervert for way less. If someone's
leaving the fandom for that, he's got some seriously thin skin. We're a
fringey fandom, and there's a lot of weirdos. The wierd run the show.
Personally, I don't mind the weirdos, because I actually have self-esteem.
If you don't like it, it's not their job to sweep everything the least bit
offensive under the rug so that you can be confortable.
> > It was people who were being thrown out of their own fandom by people
who
> > insisted they had to tolerate behavior that any other corner of
civilization
> > would have greeted with pitchforks and torches.
> >
> > The administrations running the conventions, thank God, finally figured
out
> > that this crap was kicking them in the balls, and yanked the reins in
hard.
> > With the departure of Mark Merlino, a lot of this dwindled as well.
>
> I (and Eric Blumrich, remember him?) both credit Mustelid Mark with
> being a major factor in the Furry = Kinky image. Mark was pretty much
> the founder of SoCal furry fandom as a separate genre & organized the
> first CFs; then his own instabilities and escapades made him one of
> his own fandom's biggest liabilities.
>
> > Burned Fur dissolved of its own internal strife. But don't believe for a
> > minute that the people who were in it simply ceased to exist. Provoke
the
> > fans long enough, and something like Burned Fur will coalesce again. And
> > probably bigger, meaner, and nastier than it was last time.
Bigger! Meaner! With even MORE capital letters on their websites! Oh, christ
no!
Look, be angry and dissonant all you want. Just keep your silly alarmist
schtick out of my face while I'm enjoying the interesting part of the fandom
(read: the adult stuff) Because it's not going away. The burned fur guys
went away, because they're a joke. A fringe of the fringe.
I'm really not sure whay kind of halcyon community that these people think
is going to come about. I wonder if they think that everyone who has all the
money that drives all the production of R and X rated art is going to just
up and disappear, or what. I'm actually curious if anyone at all thinks this
has even the slightest chance of happening.
> You're already seeing signs of it -- a "FURRY! WE HATES IT! WE HATES
> IT FOREVER!!!!" attitude. And in venues more mainstream and
> respectable than the Beavises & Buttheads on POE or Hirtes' flames on
> a.f.f.
Yeah, I heard it, man. I've been hearing about this backlash. I've been
hearing about it, and gee! It never seems to happen! The cons get bigger,
the quality of art is increasing, and I still don't see any backlash. I see
some smirky high-school Something Awful kids who are pretty righteous behind
a computer screen. Yeah, they're REAL worthy of respect. I mean, Lowtax is a
funny guy, but his sycophants and bootlicks can pound sand.
> Yesterday I found (and promptly lost the URL to) a Web page with an
> interesting quote. (From Memory; I know this is not completely
> accurate):
>
> "When legitimate criticism is forced underground, it surfaces much
> later, fermented into Fascist violence."
>
This is some good alarmist rhetoric.When I think furry, I think fascist.
What the hell?
-Turbine
Ken Pick
> Win hearts first, and people are much more likely to listen to your
> message. The whole Burned Fur concept is flawed: You solve nothing
> screaming at Usenet except make people avoid you at the cons.
About screaming at Usenet -- who's going to notice? Everybody and
their dog screams at Usenet; everybody and their dog screams at
everybody else and their dogs on Usenet.
It's like having your car alarm go off here in O.C. -- who's going to
hear it over all the other car alarms continually going off?
RHJunior
>
> And then distance themselves from the group when they realised there
> wasn't anybody willing to make an effort, much less a rational
> argument.
Oh, the arguments were quite rational. Which is why people are still
seething with bilious hatred for the Burned Furs long after the fact.
Facts and logic are like kryptonite to fanboys.
>
> If you're going to start a group to better the fandom, by all means,
> go ahead and do it. But don't do it out of reactionary spite like the
> Burned Furs did, or it will fail just like the Burned Furs did, and
> probably faster this time around since people won't put up with it
> again. Do it because you love the fandom and have a sense of goodwill
> to all comers. This *will* take effort and money.
Awww, we didn't feel the WUV!
People "won't put up with it," hey now? What would they do-- think mean
thoughts at 'em?
>
> I think if any such group is going to form, it would gain it's goals
> best as a service-oriented group.
Funny, the Burned Furs seemed to get your attention well enough, even
without the handouts.
Some ideas:
>
> Volunteer and sponsor family friendly conventions.
Let me get this straight. A bunch of people with little to no money are
supposed to get together and start a *whole new convention from scratch,*
simply because you can't tolerate the idea of a little cleanup of the ones
that already exist?
> Help people find roommates and rides to cons, possibly sponsor people
> who would otherwise be unable to attend.
This is already done. It's called "friends."
Ostrich
>
>
> Funny, the Burned Furs seemed to get your attention well enough
>
The unwashed drunk who vomits on the sidewalk gets attention as well, and
for much the same reasons.
-Ostrich! <")
Karl Meyer
> go ahead and do it. But don't do it out of reactionary spite like the
> Burned Furs did, or it will fail just like the Burned Furs did, and
> probably faster this time around since people won't put up with it
> again. Do it because you love the fandom and have a sense of goodwill
> to all comers. This *will* take effort and money.
Such groups already exist. They are called convention staff members.
> Volunteer and sponsor family friendly conventions.
I guess that depends on how you define 'family friendly'. Having programming
for youngsters is great. Dumbing down the the entire convention is not. Not
to belabor the point, but fan conventions are, in many cases, how the adult
fans spend their vacation. They expect their interests to be given a fair
amount of consideration.
> Help people find roommates and rides to cons, possibly sponsor people
> who would otherwise be unable to attend.
Many of the cons have roommate/rideboard sections on their web pages. As for
sponsoring people, that's always an option for individuals who wish to do
so, but it's something best done person to person. Convention staff has
enough to do without having to route sponsoring donations around.
> Win hearts first, and people are much more likely to listen to your
> message. The whole Burned Fur concept is flawed: You solve nothing
> screaming at Usenet except make people avoid you at the cons.
One other thing. A group is a lot more likely to work if it defines itself
in terms of what it's for rather than what it's against. Ultimately, the BFs
never seemed to have any common ideas as to what they wanted, just some
things they didn't want and even those weren't universal.
Karl Meyer
> Let me get this straight. A bunch of people with little to no money are
> supposed to get together and start a *whole new convention from scratch,*
> simply because you can't tolerate the idea of a little cleanup of the ones
> that already exist?
The ones that already exist are doing pretty well on that score. I refer you
to the con sponsored programming and their rules of conduct which are
enforced.
Secondly, who do you think starts conventions? None of the ones currently
running have been started by millionairs. It's a perfectly legitimate
suggestion that if a group doesn't like how the current crop of conventions
are run, they can put in the time, work, and some cash and start one of
their own. That's a lot more work than bitching and moaning of course.
Strangely enough, when the time comes for the feedback session at the furry
cons I've been to over the last several years, I don't hear any complaints
being spouted about anything the BF ranted about. There is a perfect forum
to bring up problems and nobody does. Mostly all we get is the occasional
whine weeks or months later here about some supposed thing that happened
that nobody can verify, much less do anything about.
Ken Pick
Pot. Kettle. Black.
A lot of the fandom has internalized the dogma that "everything wrong
is the Burned Furs' fault". Think about it -- just the words "Burned
Fur" or a flaming pawprint logo kick-starts the foaming-at-the-mouth
reaction usually reserved for George W Bush among Clintonistas.
-----
And in retrospect, the biggest problem with the fandom is not, repeat
NOT the sexual kinks. That's what everybody notices -- (Cue that
refugee from the Lenny Bruce skit pointing at you screaming
"Skunkfucker! Skunkfucker! Skuuuunk-Fuuuucker!") -- but it is
actually a secondary symptom of the real problem.
The real problem with the fandom is OBSESSION. It's TUNNEL VISION.
It's when the fans' cosmos contracts to "EVERYTHING'S GOTTA BE
FURR-EEEEE!" When reality outside FURRY!!! ceases to exist (or at
least gets very hazy). It's a pulling back from outside reality, to
where the cosmos becomes internal. (Cue the 2 rant "Animal Spirits"
for a shock-jock example.)
Once this happens, obnoxious behavior (including but not necessarily
yiffy stuff) goes out of control. Since nothing exists outside of my
little event horizon, what I do doesn't affect anything. Since it's
FURRY!!!, what I do automatically has cosmic importance (and nothing
outside FURRY!!! has any importance or even existence). This explains
the mooch-boiz, the yiffy-boiz, the mundane-squickers, the 400+lb
Astral Spirit Yiffy-Poos, the fanboy pong, the bad fursuits, the
yiffy-speak. Obsessive-compulsive behavior from a narrowing
perspective.
-----
Heavy Horse told me about a psych test they gave to the first batch of
astronauts back in the Sixties. 100 lines, each starting with "I am
________"; the subject had to fill in as many blanks as possible, not
repeating any answer. The object was to test the subject's
self-image.
According to HH, the average subject normally pooped out somewhere
around 30-40.
But he claimed there was a pattern with certain gay subjects (this was
probably not in the actual Sixties Astronaut evaluations, but I don't
know the details): Many of them pooped out early (like under 10), and
every answer was some "I am gay" variant on sexual behavior. If true,
this indicates that for those subjects, all their identity and image
was completely defined by their sexual behavior.
In a similar way, I suspect a lot of the furry fanboys that kicked off
a lot of the Burned Furs' motivation would have pooped out after a few
repeats of "I'm FURRY", "I'm FURRY", "I'm FURRY", etc. As in all
their identity & image is defined by being FURRY!!!, regardless of
what baggage (including sexual or obnoxious) is included in that
definition.
HH also said that the worst possible answer on that test was to poop
out after one line. "If he can only answer one line, then run away.
Now. Because all of his being is going to be focused into being that
one narrow answer."
more...@greatweed.com
Y'know, like him or not (and I don't), y'gotta admire the guy's vocabulary skills.
Silver Seams
news:bh194p$or0$1...@bob.news.rcn.net:
> Secondly, who do you think starts conventions? None of the ones
> currently running have been started by millionairs. It's a perfectly
Q. How do you make a million dollars running a [fandom] convention?
A. First, start with ten million dollars...
--
<URL: http://www.silverseams.com/ > Costuming, stuffed animals, etc.
<URL: http://www.furbid.ws/cgi-bin/auction.pl?justdisp&Silver_seams>
Karl Meyer
news:<c6752e89.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> > cath...@earthlink.net (Ken Pick) wrote in message
news:<9efdce3a.0308...@posting.google.com>...
> is the Burned Furs' fault".
A lot of the fandom had never heard of Burned Fur when it was at it's peak.
Even fewer now even remember it.
Think about it -- just the words "Burned
> Fur" or a flaming pawprint logo kick-starts the foaming-at-the-mouth
> reaction usually reserved for George W Bush among Clintonistas.
The flaming pawprint was the only cool and creative thing to come out of the
whole Burned Fur thing. I almost wish I'd bought a t-shirt then. I could
wear it now and almost nobody would know where the symbol came from
originally.
Martin Skunk
news:9efdce3a.03080...@posting.google.com...
> Heavy Horse told me about a psych test they gave to the first batch of
> astronauts back in the Sixties. 100 lines, each starting with "I am
> ________"; the subject had to fill in as many blanks as possible, not
> repeating any answer. The object was to test the subject's
> self-image.
>
That's a very good personality test. I think somebody should try and give it
a try. :)
---Martin Skunk
Ostrich
>
> A lot of the fandom has internalized the dogma that "everything wrong
> is the Burned Furs' fault". Think about it -- just the words "Burned
> Fur" or a flaming pawprint logo kick-starts the foaming-at-the-mouth
> reaction usually reserved for George W Bush among Clintonistas.
I don't think most of the fandom feels that anything major *is* wrong
with the fandom, or ever was. That's where the Burned Furs seemed to
differ from furries in general.
There are who knows how many special interest factions in furry - the
fursuiters, the zoos, the pawpeteers, the baby furs, the artists, the
plushophiles, etc. BF differed from these others in demanding (with a
notable lack of success) that everyone HAD to follow their special
agenda.
You don't make people want to do things your way by acting obnoxiously
toward them if they don't. That's why people react so negatively
towards BF. The group was a noisy disruptive nuisance while everyone
else was trying to enjoy their leisure time.
-Ostrich! <")
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
The Fri, 8 Aug 2003 14:52:29 -0700, RHJunior <blu...@ntelos.net> wrote:
> Funny, the Burned Furs seemed to get your attention well enough, even
> without the handouts.
Attention? Yes. Did they achieve any of their goals? No. Did they
create the problem they tried to prevent? Yes.
BF wasn't even a successful failure, it was a complete flameout.
>> Volunteer and sponsor family friendly conventions.
>
> Let me get this straight. A bunch of people with little to no money are
> supposed to get together and start a *whole new convention from scratch,*
> simply because you can't tolerate the idea of a little cleanup of the ones
> that already exist?
Conifur Northwest is in a few weeks and it is family friendly. CACE
happened earlier this summer, it also bills itself as family friendly.
People do bring their families to these events. I'm sure these aren't
the only two conventions trying to be family friendly.
>> Help people find roommates and rides to cons, possibly sponsor people
>> who would otherwise be unable to attend.
>
> This is already done. It's called "friends."
Sometimes friends aren't going to cons.
Why do you think the Burned Furs tactics failed the first time?
Not to equate furry with religion, Reverend, but may I ask just how
many people you have had join your congregation by a witness who
clubbed them with a Bible? Isn't it generally easier by being a
friend?
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/NI1bsClmdIs2Ki8RAtjfAJ9X9BkRbaWQh5HDZ2whE58igm9ooQCeOLvT
R09Z0+vIEh8kQI/VMrr1Clc=
=IqHD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
The Fri, 8 Aug 2003 17:33:24 -0500, Karl Meyer <fer...@rcn.com> wrote:
> Such groups already exist. They are called convention staff members.
I meant supplemental to convention staff. You know, extra volunteers
and sponsors from the same group.
> I guess that depends on how you define 'family friendly'. Having programming
> for youngsters is great. Dumbing down the the entire convention is
> not.
Oh, I'm by no means expecting the convention to be dumbed down. I
don't think Conifur is dumbed down at all.
> Many of the cons have roommate/rideboard sections on their web pages. As for
> sponsoring people, that's always an option for individuals who wish to do
> so, but it's something best done person to person. Convention staff has
> enough to do without having to route sponsoring donations around.
I'm not expecting convention staff to do this. Again, I'm talking
about a third party that actually cares. I'm starting to get the idea
that such a group (outside of convention staff) is a novel concept in
this fandom.
> One other thing. A group is a lot more likely to work if it defines itself
> in terms of what it's for rather than what it's against.
Exactly. I should have made that a bit more clear in my OP.
> Ultimately, the BFs never seemed to have any common ideas as to what
> they wanted, just some things they didn't want and even those
> weren't universal.
No apparent commonality on what they wanted, and I don't recall ever
hearing what they were for, only what they were against.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/NJKdsClmdIs2Ki8RAsJoAJ0R1aVwgfWya1YmAC2USdoEDrbgowCgg57B
DbM4Bw6cL7qiBKZ7ydeDaPA=
=+Zug
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Timmy Ramone
>
> Kenny Pick wrote:
>
> > My gamer buds kept calling Confurence "FagCon"...
Wow. I'm absolutely floored by the sophisticated insights of your
"gamer buds," Kenny. Can't wait to hear what they have to say
about the ADL or the NAACP.
> > I (and Eric Blumrich, remember him?) both credit Mustelid Mark
> > with being a major factor in the Furry = Kinky image.
That's true. But, as Kenny also pointed out, Mark also started
CF. And without CF, there would be no FC, no AC, no CFN, no MFM or
MFF. For all his kinks, at least Mark went out and *did* something.
And as much as I disagreed with Blumrich on the whole BF thing, at
least he's moved on to bigger and better ( http://www.bushflash.com ).
All Kenny and Ralphie ever do is piss and whine. (And Ralphie has
the dubious honor of being one of the few people actually kicked out
of the BF's for being *too* obnoxious!)
Speaking of Ralphie, he wrote:
> > >
> > > Burned Fur dissolved of its own internal strife. But don't
> > > believe for a minute that the people who were in it simply
> > > ceased to exist.
I'm sure they all still exist. But not many people seem to want
them around.
The final nail in the BF coffin was when Hangdog lost what few
marbles he had left and began making death threats -- against
myself and, oddly enough, fellow BF-er Eric Blumrich. And I
won't go into his racist tirades against Arabs after 9/11. Among
other things, that got him kicked off of Yerf (the "clean" furry
archive). So much for that "family-friendly" image.
> > "When legitimate criticism is forced underground, it surfaces
> > much later, fermented into Fascist violence."
>
> This is some good alarmist rhetoric. When I think furry, I think
> fascist. What the hell?
The problem is that the BF's never had anything remotely resembling
legitimate criticism (though they were certainly fascistic in their
attitudes and behavior). What can you say about a group whose
manifesto decries the threat vegetarians pose to furry fandom?
(Answer: Not much, other than to avoid eye contact and back
slowly away...)
--
Visit the "Usual Suspects" weblog:
http://www.browncross.com/usualsuspects/
"Bowl a strike, not a spare -- revolution everywhere!" -RABL motto
Michael Hirtes
wrote:
> That's true. But, as Kenny also pointed out, Mark also started
> CF. And without CF, there would be no FC, no AC, no CFN, no MFM or
> MFF.
The prosecutions rests, M'Lud.
Karl Meyer
> toward them if they don't. That's why people react so negatively
> towards BF. The group was a noisy disruptive nuisance while everyone
> else was trying to enjoy their leisure time.
I don't agree with you often, but this is one of those times.
Karl Meyer
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> The Fri, 8 Aug 2003 17:33:24 -0500, Karl Meyer <fer...@rcn.com> wrote:
> > I guess that depends on how you define 'family friendly'. Having
programming
> > for youngsters is great. Dumbing down the the entire convention is
> > not.
>
> Oh, I'm by no means expecting the convention to be dumbed down. I
> don't think Conifur is dumbed down at all.
Certainly not that I've heard. I don't think AC, MFF, or FC is really any
less family friendly. MFF has even had some children's programming and will
again this year. Our hope is that it actually gets used.
I suppose the ultimate level would be something like Duckon has with actual
child care and seperate children and teen programming tracks. General Sci-Fi
fandom is a lot older than Furry though and there are a lot more married
with children fen.
> I'm not expecting convention staff to do this. Again, I'm talking
> about a third party that actually cares. I'm starting to get the idea
> that such a group (outside of convention staff) is a novel concept in
> this fandom.
Sounds like an interesting idea and could easily enough be set up on it's
own web site. As long as it was made clear that it wasn't sponsored by or in
any way the responsibility of the conventions, I think it would be a great
idea. It could be as simple of complex as those running the site wanted to
get. The sponsorship thing might be a bit touchy to set up since there are
those who'd try to take advantage when the need really wasn't there. Not to
be harsh or anything, but conventions are luxuries. I've not gone to some
that I'd have liked to because I knew I couldn't really afford to. The ones
I do go to demand my budgetting for them well in advance, sacrificing some
other luxuries along the way. I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for those
who can't or won't do the same, but still go anyway and expect others to
foot the bill. Helping somebody out of friendship or kindness who isn't
expecting or demanding the help is a different situation and I've done that
in the past myself. Being able to spend some time with said friends and
seeing them enjoying themselves was well worth it. I'll likely do so again
at some point in the future when it's financially possible for me to do so.
iBuck
>> CF. And without CF, there would be no FC, no AC, no CFN, no MFM or
>> MFF.
>
>The prosecutions rests, M'Lud.
And the Jury hands down an aquittal..
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
Pete Stoller
> >> That's true. But, as Kenny also pointed out, Mark also started
> >> CF. And without CF, there would be no FC, no AC, no CFN, no MFM or
> >> MFF.
Don't you think it's entirely likely that the first Furry fandom
convention would have been established sometime in the early 90's
regardless of Mark? He managed to accomplish it first but it also
would have formed around a different core of organization and
leadership intent on making it happen. The fandom was building towards
its own event, and if it wasn't going to be Confurence it would be a
different con elsewhere soon enough.
>The problem is that the BF's never had anything remotely resembling
legitimate criticism
The legitimate criticism of the BF's and like-minded people in the
fandom was of the fandom's shift in focus. The medium, furry art,
stories and MUCK, on which the fandom was based, had become a sex
fantasy and fetish free for all. Lots and lots of spooge, and in
fairly embarrasing taste. The cons had some attendees behaving rather
badly in public spaces. We learned and loathed a new word:
Plushophilia. People were having sex in fursuits, behind the scenes,
but we all learned of it. This stuff was too true to be good. People
who had been involved in the fandom for some years wondered what the
hell had happened to their hobby. This stuff was making them look and
feel bad by association, and outright scaring off some talented
newcomers once they saw what was going on. Homophobia? That probably
factored in , but moreso this was FREAKophobia. There are some
interests that ought not to be shared so openly! The resulting "press
coverage," what there was, naturally focused on the freakishness and
made people shudder with revulsion.
The BFers wanted and still want all this stuff to go away, and it in
fact did ebb, depending on which of the newer cons you visited.
Frankly, we're stuck with it. I'ts never going to fade away. We can
learn to live ith it, but some of us are never going to like it or how
it reflects on our reputations, and we're going to feel burned.
more...@greatweed.com
> the dubious honor of being one of the few people actually kicked out
> of the BF's for being *too* obnoxious!)
Yes, it disturbs me no end that we have that in common.
iBuck
And realistically, that was the problem with their whole enterprise... Instead
of pushing for -more- of the stuff they wanted, they pushed for -less- of the
stuff they disliked...
Timmy Ramone
>
> Timmy Ramone wrote:
> > That's true. But, as Kenny also pointed out, Mark also started
> > CF. And without CF, there would be no FC, no AC, no CFN, no
> > MFM or MFF.
>
> Don't you think it's entirely likely that the first Furry fandom
> convention would have been established sometime in the early 90's
> regardless of Mark?
It is entirely likely, yes. However, the fact of the matter is
that Mark was the one who got the ball rolling. Like him or hate
him, you have to at least give him credit for that.
> >The problem is that the BF's never had anything remotely resembling
> >legitimate criticism
>
> The legitimate criticism of the BF's and like-minded people in the
> fandom was of the fandom's shift in focus.
No. There was never anything "legitimate" about their criticisms
from the start. Go back and read their "Manifesto" (I'm sure it
is still on-line, somewhere). There were some valid points about
the preponderance of "spooge" in the fandom -- alongside
paranoid/delusional rants about the threat things like shamanism,
spirit animals and veganism also posed to furry fandom.
So it was hard to take the BFs seriously in the first place. And
when some of them started slandering and threatening others --
some of whom happened to be friends of mine -- well, let's just
say I was quite unimpressed by their tactics. As Ostrich said
(and I rarely agree with Ostrich on almost anything), most fans
just wanted to be left alone to enjoy their hobby. The BFs were,
at best, a noisome intrusion on other people's leisure time.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<martin...@notcoldmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> The Burned Furs' movement was based on good, legitimate
> premises.
The Burned Furs' movement was based on Squee's rant, a document that
was considered so embrassing to the Burned furs due to its intollrence
and illogic that they tried to bury it.
> The idea was good, and the purpose seemed valid, and this is why they
> attracted so much attention and support on the first moments.
It seemed good and vaild but it wasn't. The burned furs quickly
attracted the worst members of furry. It was quickly shown that if
Burned furs was the cure, then furry would be better off with the deases.
> However, the way some of them acted, and the little help they got
> from some of their elements that took the BF movement as a crusade was their
> doom. You see, some of them seemed to have serious mental illnesses,
I think that the fact that burned fur had no ability to control the
extreemests in its ranks showed us that they would have no ability to
control the extreemests in furry.
> It's been years since all of that happened, and it's been years
> since I've heard of SqueeRat. I'd suggest you to let the ghosts of the past
> sleep, and if she wants to go ahead and live her own life, she's on her
> right. Besides, it's not our concern anymore.
Thouse who forget there history are doomed to repeat it. Even now
there are forces who wish to revive the "Clean up the Fandom"
crusade. And they two will fail in the same way as Burned fur and its
predesors unless they learn the lessions of why burned fur failed.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
> TWEEEEET!
> Okay, monkeybutt, 30 yard penalty for gratuitous use of a PC bullshit
> term... "Intolerance." Just in case it's never occurred to you, **there are
> things in this world which should never, ever be tolerated.**
Yes things that harm others without there concent. But the things
that BF was against. the things that Squee's rant oppses
"Plushiphilia","Furry Lifesters","Spirit animals" and "Veginism".
Doesn't cause direct harm to other people. Plushpiphilia is no more
immoral then any other form of mastibation (the number 1 recrational
passtime), Furry Lifestylers and Spirit animals are no more immoral
then any other religophilophical set of beleafes (Any way beleifes are
never imoral, its actions that can or can't be moral) and Veginism
isn't harming anyone eather.
Yes there exists things in this world that are beond tolorence. Even
I who am very pro-tolernce will admit that. But most of BF's actions
and most of the actions of the "Clean up the fandom" types where not
directed against thouse groups.
RHJunior
> Besides, how can you argue that the fandom was going fine before Merlino's
> crowd came along? That's pretty close to saying that it was doing fine
> until it existed.
*snort* as if Merlino and his fellow trained poop-flingers had anything to
do with the creation of the fandom.
RHJunior
"iBuck" <lncra...@aol.com.star> wrote in message
news:20030813201541...@mb-m03.aol.com...
> >> That's true. But, as Kenny also pointed out, Mark also started
> >> CF.
No, I fear he did not.
According to the ConFurence's own info, Merlino only *took over* the
convention from its founders.
RHJunior
> > (And Ralphie has
> > the dubious honor of being one of the few people actually kicked out
Sorry, squirrel nuts, hate to disappoint you, but I *left* because of the
rather obnoxious behavior of "Squee Rat" and a couple of her booblick
associates.
I no longer have the transcript of the conversation that sealed it, but I'm
sure someone with an archiving fetish and too much time on their hands can
post the chatroom log....
Tim Gadd
I'm just going by Fred Patten's Chronology of furry fandom, which states
that Merlino's Prancing Skiltaire household/'commune'
" had a major significance in furry fandom,starting around 1984 as the
center of the Tiger's Den BBS, then furry parties and ConFurence"
and that in July 1985, Merlino and O'Riley organised
"the first publicized open funny-animal fan party, at Westercon 38 in
Sacramento. It is popular enough to lead to the first furry party a year
later."
of which he goes on to say:
"July 1986: After about a year of holding informal open parties at SF and
comics conventions, Mark Merlino and Rod O'Riley hold the first "official"
Furry Party at Westercon 39 in San Diego. This starts the tradition of
publicizing the presence of 'morph fans at conventions by posting "furry
party" flyers featuring funny-animal pin-up art. The furry party
name leads to the characterization of these fans as "furry fandom" by the
late 1980s."
I thought Patten was a bit of an authority on these sorts of things. I
wasn't there at the time. If this is incorrect please feel free to explain.
--
Tim Gadd | fluke .com.au
Hobart, Tasmania | @southcom
Homepage: http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/university/222/
'In this game you've got 18 holes
To shoot your best somehow
Where have all my divots gone?
I'm in the back nine now'
Loudon Wainwright III
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>> Besides, how can you argue that the fandom was going fine before Merlino's
The semi-organized fandom really didn't exist until Merlino came
along. Virtually everything that we identify with the fandom today,
fanzines, comics, conventions, etc. he had a hand in. Just because
you can point out furry characters beforehand doesn't mean it was a
fandom.
Brian Henderson
>I thought Patten was a bit of an authority on these sorts of things. I
>wasn't there at the time. If this is incorrect please feel free to explain.
No, you're right. Fred was there and so was I. Sure, Vootie existed
before Mark showed up, but I don't know that you'd want to consider
Reed Waller the father of furry fandom. :)
If you look back at the early days of the C/FO when people were
getting together to draw furries in the back of anime meetings, that's
probably one of the first identifiable regular events where furries
really gathered to do furry things. That's around 1977, long before
Tiger's Den, long before ConFurence, long before Furversion.
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>"iBuck" <lncra...@aol.com.star> wrote in message
Um... since I was on the concom at CF0 and Mark and Rodney were most
certainly the founders... whoever you're getting that information from
is absolutely wrong.
Kay Shapero
blu...@ntelos.net says...
Then someone's made a goof somewhere because Mark and Rod DID
found ConFurence, with ConFurence Zero. I was there. DARRELL
took over the convention from its founders as of CF 11...
--
Kay Shapero
reply address munged - use earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~kayshapero/
Timmy Ramone
Anyway, I regard anything you have to say on the matter as suspect,
at best. Especially given your recent remarks about Mark Merlino
(which, as you can easily see, have been thoroughly discredited by
several others). The only thing you've proved is what the rest of
us have known all along: That the only people the BF's hated more
than the lifestylers and the spooge-monkeys were each other.
--
Visit the Usual Suspects weblog:
http://www.browncross.com/usualsuspects/
"Hey, ho -- let's go!" -Ramones
Darrel L. Exline
Umm.. No.
Mark Merlino and Rod O'Riley are the founders of ConFurence. *I* was
elected by staff to chair the convention (not, in any way, to be
confused with a "take over") when Mark and Rodney announced in March
of 1999 that CF10 would be their last convention.
--Darrel L. Exline
dar...@polarden.org
Onyx Dreamer
(This is the way I see it. )
Reality check. NO ONE has credit for creating furry fandom. PERIOD.
The history is just a self-indulgent lie. This 'fandom' is in reality
a meta-fandom at best. Composed of religious, artistic, and gaming
elements, the fandom can not be seen as the product of any one person
(or group of persons') idea.
Proof: Most furs tell you out right that they have always been furries
and just din;t have a name for it until they found others. Clearly you
can't believe that the more spiritual side of the fandom only came
into being after 1984.
Precedent: No self respecting trekie/trecker would claim that the
founders of that movement created Trek fandom. If anything they say
that Gene Rodenbury can created Star Trek. End of story. And that
movement influanced the greater world even as others laughted at them.
More: Many of the art forms (not individual titles) featuring what
most all would consider furries now commonly available date back to
the turn of the century. I have watched as that is ignored and
explained away but the truth is that this is the natural blooming of a
movement that was always apart of the human society.
The fandom was not created but gathered under a banner. The real
reason that it came together was the networks created by the Sci-fi
fans and Otaku, independent comics and (as much as it pains me to say
his name) Bill Gates and the internet. I suggest all ignore the furry
history you quote as it is a lie.
As far as BF is concerned I can only pray that in this Divine Comedy,
that there is just a small circle of hell set aside for them and all
others that would teach hate, condemn those that believe differently,
seek to silence those that speak unpopular thoughts and damn others
for living the life they wish to lead while affecting no one but
themselves.
To those that are tempted to believe as they did, know that the worst
evil ever done by one soul to another usually (though not always)
start with words like 'god, country and family'. 'they are evil can't
you see it' and 'this is to protect our...'.
Swipecat
>The fandom was not created but gathered under a banner. The real
>reason that it came together was the networks created by the Sci-fi
>fans and Otaku, independent comics and (as much as it pains me to say
>his name) Bill Gates and the internet. I suggest all ignore the furry
>history you quote as it is a lie.
It's not that black and white. The fandom mostly gathered under a banner
in the way that you describe, but Merlino certainly had influence. Fred
Patten's chronology is as good as any:
http://www.arclight.net/~yarf/YARF_Chronology.html
--
Swipecat
mick
Henderson <b.l.he...@verizon.net> wrote:
> The semi-organized fandom really didn't exist until Merlino came
> along. Virtually everything that we identify with the fandom today,
> fanzines, comics, conventions, etc. he had a hand in.
And furry online chats, furry sex stories, and furry spooge art, as
well! And don't foget Merlino's fairly successfull attempt to make
Furry a fandom for gays and fetishists.
iBuck
>well! And don't foget Merlino's fairly successfull attempt to make
>Furry a fandom for gays and fetishists.
Ah, but that's the point we're discussing, is the fandom still that way or
have we moved on, and just are left with a lingering perception, that is
continousy decried by people who haven't noticed that the fandom has moved
on...
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>Reality check. NO ONE has credit for creating furry fandom. PERIOD.
>The history is just a self-indulgent lie. This 'fandom' is in reality
>a meta-fandom at best. Composed of religious, artistic, and gaming
>elements, the fandom can not be seen as the product of any one person
>(or group of persons') idea.
Reality check. We're talking about ORGANIZED furry fandom. People
didn't just start liking anime in 1977 but that's when the first
anime-specific organization was started. People didn't start liking
furries in the late-70s/early-80s, but that is when the fandom started
to get organized, providing furry-specific forums, BBSs, conventions,
fanzines, etc., made and marketed specifically for an audience of
furry fans.
Brian Henderson
I'm not, but that doesn't change the fact that we can trace the
origins of organized furry fandom to a very few people, even if they
did later screw it up with the fetish nonsense.
Onyx Dreamer
YES REALITY CHECK. If you had read what I wrote you would see that I
did say that you like to try to use qualitirs to prove that you must
be right (though I didn't say it) to tell others to just accept your
version of things. Re-read everything I wrote I read what you wrote
and rejected it with solid auguments. You guys just don't get it. I
will be brief and here it is...
Furry cons are decended from anime and sci-fi cons before them.
(Sci-fi cons going back to 20' and at the time they had the same
reputaion that furry now enjoys.) The format is the same and only the
subject matter is different. Your statement is that some how he made
this format. Otherwise it is like you saying that if I make a new form
that I have made a brand new thing instad of a new application of a
pre-exsisting item. Also, since most furs knew each other (if they
were active on the net (as it was then), comic or sci-fi cons. There
was an pre-established audience with significant links. I could add
more but you are not listening and won't even now. [I am just blowing
off steam and killing time.]
Second, and since you did not read what I wrote I will write it again,
This is Metafandom made of various interests linked by the internet
and a few other communication links. Thus it is not by it's very
nature - Organized. If it was organized the most elemental of issues
would be handled - Names.
The fact is that many of us have seen several persons with the same
name appearing in various places on the web within this organized
fandom. If it was organized it would have handled this as one of the
first issues handled. Or at the least, there would be a govenerning
body or council. Or even an offical channel for communications between
the major entites.
He did not create the internet. Or the concept or pracitcal applicaion
of cons. Or Furry comics (they date back to '40s) or even serious uses
of furrry characters in comics (yes disney did that too and yes they
count per the definition or furry). Did ye creates religon and
connections betwween those with animal totams and their totems - no.
So what did he create - nothing. He and I presume the two of you(as
a logical person would have realized the truth of my aurgument without
this additional information so I must assume an emotional tie) used
the tools availoible to create a series of comics and cons. You may
have a right to claim to be a part of each of those things that he
himself directly created or affected but nothing beyond that.
In fact, furry cons have also be been had but not under the name
"furry" but "funny animal" and "anthromohic"(sp) celebrating a family
of characters or titles. They did not need his 'influance'. You have
thus failed again to proove your point. No one made the interrest or
the internet in this fandom.
I know you will ignore this as it does not fit with you myopic view of
the world. But the fact is that thit is to oppion of someone that
studdied the fandom in a serious way before actually choosing to
become invulved.
Let me tell everyone else that realizes what I am saying the reason
you want to believe this stupid lie you call furry history...you what
togain some imagined air of acceptibilty by creating a history. Well,
making and perpetuating this history is majorly negative. This is
saying that everyone that has these feeling, artwork styles or
appriciations owes something to some one. But This is not true. Most
persons get on the internet and find the fandom but most do because
they were looking for like minds. That means that if they don't find
it they may make it. In fact, that is happening all the time and has
nothing to do with the organization that you imagine. That is the very
nature of a meta-fandom. His actions didn't make it happen, it was
happening already. He was there at the begining and that is not cause
for name recognition.
If those want to believe that Lie I really am done with showing that
they are wrong. After all, I don't have to. I know that they can't or
won't accept that they are wrong. Everyone else know knows the truth.
This is a movement. No one should get credit for this. This is not a
cult or a religion, it is a lot of folks that get togehter to share
their intrests. Saying that someone should get the credit beyond to
the things that they themselves do is wrong as if shifts the credit
from where it really belongs - with the creators, buyers, believers
and players that have made this fandom what it is and continue to
TOTALLY RE-INVENT IT with their heart, ideas and dreams. See the
fandom for what it is and drop the useless lie of a history. That is
one of the first things that we can fo to make a truely good fandom.
Now Ihave togo out and make the things that will make this a fun
fandom again and not deal with such foolishness. (That menas
gentlemena you are answering to no one but yourselves as I am out of
here.)
mike...@gmail.com
act...@gmail.com
> Some Years later, in 2017 a Group called Furry Raider became for the fandom the New Burned Furs