A Furry Thing Happened...
K. Xydexx Jorgensen
Xydexx : "My, those are some big pants Nate Patrin is wearing."
ChicknLitl: "Someone could get lost in them. There ought to be a law."
Xydexx : "Hey, that's a funny picture of a fluffy pink bunnymorph
you drew. Good to see another new furry artist here."
ChicknLitl: "Well, I draw funny animals, but I don't call myself a
furry artist."
Xydexx : "Why not?"
ChicknLitl: "Because furry is all about sex."
Xydexx : "No it isn't. It's about anthropomorphics."
ChicknLitl: "I know, but everyone thinks it's about sex."
Xydexx : "Like you, for example?"
ChicknLitl: "No, I think it's about drawing funny animals."
Xydexx : "Then why did you just say furry is all about sex?"
ChicknLitl: "Because everyone thinks it's about sex."
Xydexx : "Does everyone include you?"
ChicknLitl: "Of course."
Xydexx : "So you think furry is all about sex."
ChicknLitl: "Right. I mean- no, wait.."
Xydexx : "Does everyone include me?"
ChicknLitl: "Of course."
Xydexx : "But I just said furry is about anthropomorphics."
ChicknLitl: "Well, everyone except you then."
Xydexx : "Everyone except me. And you, right?"
ChicknLitl: "Uh, maybe."
Xydexx : "C'mon, answer the question. Do you think furry is about
sex or not?"
ChicknLitl: "Uh, no... I guess not."
Xydexx : "Then why go around saying it is?"
ChicknLitl: "Because everyone else thinks so."
Xydexx : "Everyone except you and me, right?"
ChicknLitl: "Uh, yeah... I guess so..."
Xydexx : "So everyone else doesn't think furry is all about sex,
right?"
ChicknLitl: "Yeah, I suppose."
Xydexx : "I'd wager half the ones going around saying furry is all
about sex are just doing it to fit in and look cool, right? After all,
simply _everyone_ does it. Makes you wonder which is more important,
being like _everyone_, or being _yourself_..."
ChicknLitl: "As Winston Churchill once said, people would rather die
than think for themselves."
Xydexx : "Hey, can you draw a picture of me being friendly to Nate
Patrin and trying to shake his hand, and him being all grumpy and
grouchy at me?"
ChicknLitl: "Sorry, I don't do erotica."
Xydexx : "Oh, okay. I can be such a masochist sometimes."
ChicknLitl: "You must read alt.fan.furry a lot."
Xydexx : "Not lately. Been busy offline playing Transport Tycoon
until all hours of the morning, and watching old 1950s movies on AMC."
ChicknLitl: "Really? I find that hard to believe."
Xydexx : "Ever see Out-of-Towners? Some old movie with Jack
Lemmon. It was on last night. It's like a 1950s version of Clockwise
(starring John Cleese...)."
ChicknLitl: "I didn't know you liked old movies.
Xydexx : "Well, I haven't seen many, but I'm trying to see more."
ChicknLitl: "Have you seen Gone With The Wind yet?"
Xydexx : "Not yet, but I plan to. Like I said, I can be such a
masochist sometimes."
_______________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
No-Longer-Obligated Former Ambassador To Furry Fandom
(But Still A Pretty Nice Guy If You Actually Get To Know Him.)
"Remember back when 'gay' meant 'happy'? It still does."
Syke
K. Xydexx Jorgensen wrote:
*Bunch of Gibberish*
Nice to see you still enjoy twisting things around to mean something
completely different.
*I* do not think furry is about sex, what I do think, is that there are a
lot of people
who are in positions that are important to me and other artists who DO think
this.
Therefore, I am not going to tell them I do "furry" art, instead, I'll say I
draw cartoons
and fantasy artwork. It's known as being SMART and knowing what to say.
> _______________________________________________________________
> Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
> No-Longer-Obligated Former Ambassador To Furry Fandom
> (But Still A Pretty Nice Guy If You Actually Get To Know Him.)
> "Remember back when 'gay' meant 'happy'? It still does."
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
That's Ms. Syke to you, Bud.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Homepage:http://www.FurNation.com/Syke/
My email is now PostPet friendly!
Places to Find Me Online:
ICQ:11325417
Transformers Genesis:mozzarella.wpi.edu port 2000
Quinn/Nightwatch/Darius/Syke
FurryMUCK:Syke, occasionally
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jesse McIntyre
Syke wrote:
> K. Xydexx Jorgensen wrote:
>
> *Bunch of Gibberish*
>
> Nice to see you still enjoy twisting things around to mean something
> completely different.
> *I* do not think furry is about sex, what I do think, is that there are a
> lot of people
> who are in positions that are important to me and other artists who DO think
> this.
> Therefore, I am not going to tell them I do "furry" art, instead, I'll say I
> draw cartoons
> and fantasy artwork. It's known as being SMART and knowing what to say.
>
>
>
Ayep, well, time for me to pull myself outta the background and support Xydexx,
cause its me job. :)
Don't know what happened, don't care, don't want ta know. :) Not even saying Xy
was right 'bout whatever. Just supporting him. :) Go find 'nother scapegoat,
y'all. :) In fact... :) start a alt.fan.furry.xydexx.haters newgroup, and mail
it there. :)
Bye now. :)
Natchat-Riis. Offical Supporter of Xydexx Squeakypony, and general love
spreader. When he feels like it. :)
P.S. Syke, don't get mad bout this. :) It's my job, you might have been right.
:)
Ross Smith
>
> ChicknLitl: "As Winston Churchill once said, people would rather die
> than think for themselves."
It was Bertrand Russell: "Most people would die sooner than think. In
fact, they do."
--
Ross Smith ..................................... Wellington, New Zealand
<mailto:r-s...@ihug.co.nz> ........ <http://crash.ihug.co.nz/~r-smith/>
"Remember when we told you there was no future? Well, this is it."
-- Blank Reg
Nate Patrin
article <35B92B...@spammy.aol.com>...
> A Furry Thing Happened On The Way To The Dealer's Room:
>
> Xydexx : "My, those are some big pants Nate Patrin is wearing."
> ChicknLitl: "Someone could get lost in them. There ought to be a law."
Ohh, phblt. You're just upset you couldn't get a clear view of my butt for
yer gawkin' pleasure. Perv.
> Xydexx : "Hey, can you draw a picture of me being friendly to Nate
> Patrin and trying to shake his hand, and him being all grumpy and
> grouchy at me?"
Heh heh. Sorry man, but I got a rep to uphold. I was wonderin' when you
were gonna bring that up.
> Xydexx : "Ever see Out-of-Towners? Some old movie with Jack
> Lemmon. It was on last night. It's like a 1950s version of Clockwise
> (starring John Cleese...)."
Actually, to th' best of my knowledge, it was released in about '70.
--
-Nate Patrin
======================================================
"Will I be drawing these damn rabbits forever?" -Matt Groening, 1990
n8r...@pioneerplanet.infi.net
K. Xydexx Jorgensen
> Ayep, well, time for me to pull myself outta the background and support Xydexx,
> cause its me job. :)
Thanks, hon. You get hugs. -:)
> Don't know what happened, don't care, don't want ta know. :) Not even saying Xy
> was right 'bout whatever. Just supporting him. :) Go find 'nother scapegoat,
> y'all. :) In fact... :) start a alt.fan.furry.xydexx.haters newgroup, and mail
> it there. :)
Heh. Don't give them any ideas. Besides, alt.fan.furry without people
flaming me is like a sabre-tooth tiger without sabre-teeth.
_______________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
No-Longer-Obligated Former Ambassador To Furry Fandom
(But Still Proudly Calls Himself A Furry Fan Cuz Furries Rule.)
K. Xydexx Jorgensen
> > Xydexx : "Hey, can you draw a picture of me being friendly to Nate
> > Patrin and trying to shake his hand, and him being all grumpy and
> > grouchy at me?"
>
> Heh heh. Sorry man, but I got a rep to uphold. I was wonderin' when you
> were gonna bring that up.
Sorry to have kept you in suspense all this time. I don't read this
newsgroup that much these days.
> Ohh, phblt. You're just upset you couldn't get a clear view of my butt for
> yer gawkin' pleasure. Perv.
Yup. (Hey, I have a rep to uphold too, y'know?)
> > Xydexx : "Ever see Out-of-Towners? Some old movie with Jack
> > Lemmon. It was on last night. It's like a 1950s version of Clockwise
> > (starring John Cleese...)."
>
> Actually, to th' best of my knowledge, it was released in about '70.
Actually, now that I think about it, yeah, it did seem like it was later
than 1950s... that's odd. For some reason I tend to say any movie over
20 years old, be it 1930 or 1970, was released in "the 1950s". (And
usually I'm right --- give or take 20 years.)
_______________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
No-Longer-Obligated Former Ambassador To Furry Fandom
(But Still A Demented 1990s Version Of Mark Twain.)
K. Xydexx Jorgensen
> K. Xydexx Jorgensen wrote:
> >
> > ChicknLitl: "As Winston Churchill once said, people would rather die
> > than think for themselves."
>
> It was Bertrand Russell: "Most people would die sooner than think. In
> fact, they do."
Oops. My bad.
"Now art should never try to be popular. The public should try to make
itself artistic." ---Oscar Wilde
_______________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
No-Longer-Obligated Former Ambassador To Furry Fandom
(But Keeps A Copy Of Bartlett's Book Of Quotations Nearby.)
K. Xydexx Jorgensen
> *I* do not think furry is about sex, what I do think, is that there are a
> lot of people who are in positions that are important to me and other
> artists who DO think this.
<REITERATE>
Makes you wonder which is more important,
being like _everyone_, or being _yourself_?
</REITERATE>
But never mind... rhetorical question at this point...
_______________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
No-Longer-Obligated Former Ambassador To Furry Fandom
(But Still Thinks Furry Is About Anthropomorphics Anyway.)
ilr
> Heh. Don't give them any ideas. Besides, alt.fan.furry without people
> flaming me is like a sabre-tooth tiger without sabre-teeth.
>
>
Just for fun, lets twist some more words.
Whaddaya mean furry ain't bout sex?, Life is
about sex [no offense directed at the "Happy's"]
But nooo, for the sake of all it's artists who's
entire existence depends on being taken seriously,
it has nothing to do with anything degrading like
sex. Of course my twisted logic would whine that
if it's apart from sex, then it's apart from life.
And will only grow old and extinct with no additional
generations evolving. [Yeah, this is turning into a stupid Rant]
The next generations would have been new younger artists
attracted by the more racy issues, rather than quality art
which they were not yet capable of. But the racy issues
weren't there, it was just a bunch of old humans happy
as hell that the fandom was cleansed of spooge, and it
eventually died with them. And no one said "Oh mah
God, They killed Furry Fandom!" because its few surviving
fans were raised on 1950's movies and hated smut.
And everyone has to decry smut every chance they get too.
Lets pretend that they all accepted what Picasso was doing
at his time. A lot of artists here(highly respected by me
unfortunately) like to act like they're creating classic-friggin
-art or something. Picasso would have died a no-name (with
the exception of his earlier work) if they accepted what he
did. They thought it was perverted, if not downright satanic.
In the Future when they're having death sex, body modification,
and a ton of other things we can't imagine, this "Smut" might
be considered classical.
Stop trying to wash the spooge out of my Fur
-ilr
================================
"What's a revolution without a revolt?"
i...@rof.net
Website: none, just track me down on yiffco
===================================
Don Sanders
>A Furry Thing Happened On The Way To The Dealer's Room:
>
keep it 's orginal content (wow, such big words from a little chow;))****
Ya know I had to put m .02 cents in, cause I could not spend it at AAC.
Anywho, it seem strange that these days, folks equate furry with sex.
It seem like only yesterday, like 30 or 40 years ago, nah, lets say the early
to mid 70's, a lot of us who were into underground comixs saw a lot of furry
images. I can imagine back then, if there was a internet and a open fandom,
some folks would say, that furry equates to drugs. Hehehe, Right! I can now
imagine the next century when Furry equates to (add your own fears and self
doubt here).
Well, I had my say, guess I will return to the studio and draw some more naked
bunnies :) But I can say for myself, Furry is not all about sex, well, not
all about sex, er I mean only a little about sex, um... Nevermind, hehe .
>Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
>No-Longer-Obligated Former Ambassador To Furry Fandom
>(But Still A Pretty Nice Guy If You Actually Get To Know Him.)
> "Remember back when 'gay' meant 'happy'? It still does."
Former? how about Ambassador without Porfolilo(sp?), it sounds better, more
important, and since the fandom has no defined bounderies, more less likely to
be recalled. have fun.
Don Sanders
Dsan Tsan on #furry and on FurryMuck
Valsen Tsan on Tapestries
Artist at Roll Yer Own Graphics
http://www.dreamscape.com/dsand101/dsan.htm
(my furry page) Email dsan...@future.dreamscape.com
Peter da Silva
Jesse McIntyre <natcha...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Natchat-Riis. [...] general love spreader. [...]
I tried that new spreadable love, but it tasted just like margarine, so
I went back to the old stuff even if I do have to leave it out half an
hour before using it.
--
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
David Tapia
"Nate Patrin" <n8r...@pioneerplanet.infi.spammers.smoke.crack.net> wrote:
> K. Xydexx Jorgensen <xydexx-the-...@spammy.aol.com> wrote in
> article <35B92B...@spammy.aol.com>...
> >
> > ChicknLitl: "Someone could get lost in them. There ought to be a law."
>
> yer gawkin' pleasure. Perv.
>
Too bad you didn't take a boom box to the con with you Nate. Anytime Xydexx
attempted to approach, you could have just blasted him with some Merzbow and
said "Keep away ya freak!" Of course you might have cleared up the entire
hotel if you had played Merzobw for 30 seconds. Next year Nate. Next year.
Hmmm...anybody up for watching 'Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer' at next
year's con?
--
David Tapia
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Chuck Melville
> Syke wrote:
> > *I* do not think furry is about sex, what I do think, is that there are
a
> > lot of people who are in positions that are important to me and other
> > artists who DO think this.
>
> <REITERATE>
> Makes you wonder which is more important,
> being like _everyone_, or being _yourself_?
> </REITERATE>
>
Foolish question. She's already stated the answer. She wants to be
herself and not be inappropriately mislabeled with a misleading term,
especially if it could cost her a promising job or career.
--
-Chuck Melville-
"We'd like to buy a cat. Preferably one with a history of mental illness."
Elf Sternberg
>I tried that new spreadable love, but it tasted just like margarine, so
>I went back to the old stuff even if I do have to leave it out half an
>hour before using it.
Yeah, cold love just isn't any fun. It does take a little
warming up. 'Course, you could just use the Microwave o' Foreplay.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg - www.halcyon.com/elf
I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss has looked into me.
Neither liked what we saw.
--- Brother Theodore
Peter da Silva
> Yeah, cold love just isn't any fun. It does take a little
>warming up. 'Course, you could just use the Microwave o' Foreplay.
Ack. MORE WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT!
I read that as "Microsoft Foreplay".
"Where do you want to go today?"
"Third Base!"
(cue Abbot and Costello)
Chuck Melville
> One of the more fascinating paradoxes I've observed on this newsgroup
> over the past two years is how a lot of the folks who don't want to call
> themselves "furry" because "it's all about sex, et al." are quite often
> the same people saying furry is all about sex, et al. in the first
> place.
>
Well, shucks, Xxydex, a lot of the folks who don't want to call themselves
'furry' don't even -have- to say furry is all about sex... we have plenty
of other
folks out there gleefully pointing it out to the whole world at large. For
a point in example, try the latest issue of BIZARRE
(http://www.bizarremag.com/)
for an article on fetishes, with an excerpt on plushies and furries that
makes Confurence sound like a sleazy attraction on Times Square.
Elf Sternberg
>In article <6pd7pb$ukk$1...@brokaw.wa.com>, Elf Sternberg <e...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>> Yeah, cold love just isn't any fun. It does take a little
>>warming up. 'Course, you could just use the Microwave o' Foreplay.
>Ack. MORE WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT!
>I read that as "Microsoft Foreplay".
>"Where do you want to go today?"
>
> "Third Base!"
Microsoft Foreplay? That's where they give the executives
money before they fuck the developers...
K. Xydexx Jorgensen
> Well, shucks, Xydexx, a lot of the folks who don't want to call themselves
> 'furry' don't even -have- to say furry is all about sex...
I know, they don't _have_ to. But they still do anyway. -:P
> For a point in example, try the latest issue of BIZARRE
> (http://www.bizarremag.com/) for an article on fetishes
Xydexx quickly dons his dark sunglasses and runs from the gathering
papparazzi.
"I have no comment on that at this time." -:)
_______________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
No-Longer-Obligated Former Ambassador To Furry Fandom
(Only Grants Interviews If You Ask Him Really Really Nicely)
K. Xydexx Jorgensen
Chuck Melville
> Chuck Melville wrote:
> > Well, shucks, Xydexx, a lot of the folks who don't want to call
themselves
> > 'furry' don't even -have- to say furry is all about sex...
>
> I know, they don't _have_ to. But they still do anyway. -:P
Sure. In order to point out the lie in your repeated claims that it
-isn't- about sex.
And before people start reacting in knee-jerk fashion, yes, I'm aware that
furry ostensibly -isn't- about sex... but what you always glibly avoid is
the concrete fact that the -perception- from outside -- and that includes
the reporters and/or journalists that write up the fandom -- is that it
-is-. And that's where the harm is. And that's why every outside article
about furrydom has centered squarely on the sleaze factor. And that's why
professional writers and artists looking for jobs in the animation field,
selling books to publishers, or what-have-you always have to contend with
stiff resistance from potential employers; because of the image problem the
fandom has obtained, and perversely clings to.
By saying only 'furries is about funny-animals', which is true, but
ignoring that it is perceived by others as being about sex -- and there
appear to be many here who feel that that -is- what it's all about -- then
you are making a sin of omission, and are only helping to perpetuate the
harm.
But then, considering how you are also mentioned and quoted in the
article, I guess you have your own interests to protect as well.
> Xydexx quickly dons his dark sunglasses and runs from the gathering
> papparazzi.
>
> "I have no comment on that at this time." -:)
Small wonder.
Dan Pankratz
> the concrete fact that the -perception- from outside -- and that includes
> the reporters and/or journalists that write up the fandom -- is that it
> -is-. And that's where the harm is. And that's why every outside article
> about furrydom has centered squarely on the sleaze factor.
Acknowledging that the "reporters and/or journalists that write up the fandom"
are almost always from publications that specialize in sensationalizing
sleaze should help put things in perspective. It's a bit of a biased sample,
don't you think?
> And that's why
> professional writers and artists looking for jobs in the animation field,
> selling books to publishers, or what-have-you always have to contend with
> stiff resistance from potential employers; because of the image problem the
> fandom has obtained, and perversely clings to.
Is it the /fandom/ that has the image problem, or the /genre/? Is it the
people, or the art? I'm convinced it's the latter. Every non-fur I've ever shown
furry art to has picked up on the fact that it screams sex- and I have yet to
show an outsider anything that would garner an NC-17 rating in the CF artshow,
or anything that wouldn't be accepted at the AAC artshow. Why is this? I'm
convinced it's an unavoidable byproduct of the genre... any time you draw a
halfway decent human physique with fur, ears, and tail, the first thing people
will cue on is the fact that it's a human physique, and a sexy one. The second is
of course the fact that this "human" is part animal as well, and there you have
it- furry = sex.
Granted, not all furry art is equally embedded in a sexualized context- a good
example of the latter, unsexed furry art is that recent ZU cover I mentioned by
Heather Riesen. But art like that is an exception, not the rule.
Who outside the fandom, in the animation industry, for instance, has ever heard
of Jim Groat? Or Steve Gallacci? Or more appropriately, Mark Merlino? I bet you
could count those who are familiar with these names on one hand. Ask this same
pool of people whether they've heard of furry art, and you'd get quite a
different response, I'm sure. It's not the people, and what we may or may not
have to say, it's the art. The art speaks for itself.
> By saying only 'furries is about funny-animals', which is true, but
> ignoring that it is perceived by others as being about sex -- and there
> appear to be many here who feel that that -is- what it's all about -- then
I'm not convinced that what we, the fen, decide furry fandom's about makes
much of a difference at all. It's how outsiders, who have no point of
reference, perceive it that matters, at least when it comes to issues of public
relations.
And all they have to do to form _that_ opinion is take a peek.
-Dan
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Repeat after me: us, them... uuuussss, _them_..."
-The Truth About Cats and Dogs
Chuck Melville
<6pfpco$ikh$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>...
> In article <01bdb8b1$aab431a0$LocalHost@kathleen>, "Chuck Melville"
<cp...@zipcon.net> writes:
>
>
> > the concrete fact that the -perception- from outside -- and that
includes
> > the reporters and/or journalists that write up the fandom -- is that it
> > -is-. And that's where the harm is. And that's why every outside
article
> > about furrydom has centered squarely on the sleaze factor.
>
> Acknowledging that the "reporters and/or journalists that write up the
fandom"
> are almost always from publications that specialize in sensationalizing
> sleaze should help put things in perspective. It's a bit of a biased
sample,
> don't you think?
Is it? Consider that the -only- publications writing about furry appear
to be sex mags. The only exception was the WIRED article of a couple of
years ago, and even that was slanted towards sex. Where are the more
mainstream press such as TIME or NEWSWEEK? Where are the more specialized
mags like COMICS JOURNAL or STARLOG? Why isn't there any interest from the
SF magazines like ANALOG, SCIENCE-FICTION CHRONICLE, or, more
appropriately, REALMS OF FANTASY? Granted not all of these publications
are going to have an interest in furry, and furry may not be appropos to
the title for reasons of timeliness or topic -- but -none- of them are
writing or publishing articles about furry, whether it be about the fandom,
the art, the stories, the people, etc. If you have only sex mags writing
about furry, then there is a definite bias at work, but it is one of
perception -- the perception that it is a sex fantasy.
> > And that's why
> > professional writers and artists looking for jobs in the animation
field,
> > selling books to publishers, or what-have-you always have to contend
with
> > stiff resistance from potential employers; because of the image problem
the
> > fandom has obtained, and perversely clings to.
>
> Is it the /fandom/ that has the image problem, or the /genre/? Is it the
> people, or the art? I'm convinced it's the latter
Both. Quite often, the two are indistinguishable to outsiders. One
follows the other, in their estimation.
>Every non-fur I've ever shown
> furry art to has picked up on the fact that it screams sex- and I have
yet to
> show an outsider anything that would garner an NC-17 rating in the CF
artshow,
> or anything that wouldn't be accepted at the AAC artshow. Why is this?
I'm
> convinced it's an unavoidable byproduct of the genre... any time you draw
a
> halfway decent human physique with fur, ears, and tail, the first thing
people
> will cue on is the fact that it's a human physique, and a sexy one. The
second is
> of course the fact that this "human" is part animal as well, and there
you have
> it- furry = sex.
>
Why does that naturally follow, unless you show a picture with a detailed
rendering of humanoid aspects? Do you get that reaction, say, from showing
an OZZY AND MILLIE strip to a non-fur? Or a KEVIN AND KELL? There are
several artists who tend more towards broader cartoon characters; I doubt
many of those would garner the same reaction. (At least, I hope not!)
I do gather your point, though, as there is a lot of material that skirts
along the edge, in portraying furry morphs (or similar); there's no
escaping that. But those portrayals shouldn't of themselves lead to the
kind of exclusive interest we seem to garner among the sleaze mags. What
other genre or sub-genre is -only- written up in sex mags, outside of
sexually oriented interests?
> Granted, not all furry art is equally embedded in a sexualized context- a
good
> example of the latter, unsexed furry art is that recent ZU cover I
mentioned by
> Heather Riesen. But art like that is an exception, not the rule.
If art like that was an exception, I'd have had -no- covers for ZU. Or
interiors. Neither would FURRLOUGH.
> Who outside the fandom, in the animation industry, for instance, has ever
heard
> of Jim Groat? Or Steve Gallacci? Or more appropriately, Mark Merlino? I
bet you
> could count those who are familiar with these names on one hand. Ask this
same
> pool of people whether they've heard of furry art, and you'd get quite a
> different response, I'm sure. It's not the people, and what we may or may
not
> have to say, it's the art. The art speaks for itself.
It's not just the art that garners the attention, though. It wasn't art
that attracted the attention of LOADED, but the fetshism. It wasn't the
art, but the extreme behavior of a small segment of con-goers that drew the
focus of BIZARRE.
> > By saying only 'furries is about funny-animals', which is true, but
> > ignoring that it is perceived by others as being about sex -- and there
> > appear to be many here who feel that that -is- what it's all about --
then
>
> I'm not convinced that what we, the fen, decide furry fandom's about
makes
> much of a difference at all. It's how outsiders, who have no point of
> reference, perceive it that matters, at least when it comes to issues of
public
> relations.
Yes. Exactly so. But if those perceptions are continually validated by
the more visible and outrageous factions, then the perception will never
alter, and furry will continue to play damage control into perpetuity.
William Haskell
>
> In article <01bdb780$655973e0$38db96ce@n8rich>,
> "Nate Patrin" <n8r...@pioneerplanet.infi.spammers.smoke.crack.net> wrote:
> > > A Furry Thing Happened On The Way To The Dealer's Room:
> > >
> > > Xydexx : "My, those are some big pants Nate Patrin is wearing."
> > > ChicknLitl: "Someone could get lost in them. There ought to be a law."
> >
> > Ohh, phblt. You're just upset you couldn't get a clear view of my butt for
> > yer gawkin' pleasure. Perv.
> >
>
> Too bad you didn't take a boom box to the con with you Nate. Anytime Xydexx
> attempted to approach, you could have just blasted him with some Merzbow and
> said "Keep away ya freak!" Of course you might have cleared up the entire
> hotel if you had played Merzobw for 30 seconds. Next year Nate. Next year.
>
> Hmmm...anybody up for watching 'Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer' at next
> year's con?
That depends whether it runs before or after 'Meet The Feebles.'
David Tapia
"forban"@[204.52.135.1] wrote:
> David Tapia wrote:
<snipped a lot>
> >
> > Hmmm...anybody up for watching 'Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer' at next
> > year's con?
>
> That depends whether it runs before or after 'Meet The Feebles.'
What would necessarily be the difference for you if 'Henry' were show before
or after 'Feebles'?
Now that I think about it maybe a Peter Jackson festival would be a nice to
have (all his films except for 'Frighteners'- bleech!)
The following day the films to be screened could include (not necessarily in
this order): 'Trainspotting', 'M', 'A CLockwork Orange', 'Welcome to the
Dollouse', 'Martin', 'Apocalypse Now', 'Man Bites Dog' (French Film), and of
course 'Henry'.
Any additional suggestions to add to the festival?
Dan Pankratz
> > Acknowledging that the "reporters and/or journalists that write up the
> fandom"
> > are almost always from publications that specialize in sensationalizing
> > sleaze should help put things in perspective. It's a bit of a biased
> sample,
> > don't you think?
>
> Is it? Consider that the -only- publications writing about furry appear
> to be sex mags. The only exception was the WIRED article of a couple of
> years ago, and even that was slanted towards sex. Where are the more
> mainstream press such as TIME or NEWSWEEK? Where are the more specialized
I don't know. I don't have many very good ideas as to why we're not covered in
the mainstream press, but I'm not convinced that it's because of some sexual
reputation which we may or may not have among the press corps. I think it has
more to do with our size. YMMV, of course... this is very subjective territory.
Any evidence one way or the other would be much welcome.
> the title for reasons of timeliness or topic -- but -none- of them are
> writing or publishing articles about furry, whether it be about the fandom,
> the art, the stories, the people, etc. If you have only sex mags writing
> about furry, then there is a definite bias at work, but it is one of
> perception -- the perception that it is a sex fantasy.
As I suggest above, I'm not convinced that it immediately follows that just
because furrydom is only treated and publicized by the exploiters of sex that
furrydom is necessarily nothing but sex. I'm not even convinced that this is a
perception that these magazines are attempting to portray. All I think it
suggests is that folks who are looking for a new sexual fantasy have a good
chance of finding something of interest to them in furrydom, and that the editors
and reporters of these sexually-targeted magazines have shrewdly picked up on
this element of furry fandom. This doesn't necessarily mean, however that
furrydom is exclusively about sex. It's like a magazine that caters to collectors
covering a civil war convention... sure, for some folks, collecting civil war
memorabilia is the reason for their involvement in the "civil war commmunity",
for others it might be the rendezvouses (!) or the reenactments or the general
historical interest of the thing that holds the appeal. Granted, it may in fact
be a very small percentage of the participants of a civil war convention who are
there to collect memorabilia, but they are there nonetheless and outsiders who
like to collect may enjoy taking advantage of the opportunities their presence
affords. That doesn't mean that's all there is to a civil war convention,
though... and I don't think most folks reading such an article would necessarily
assume such right off the bat, either.
Yeesh. Here's hoping the analogy holds... :)
> > Is it the /fandom/ that has the image problem, or the /genre/? Is it the
> > people, or the art? I'm convinced it's the latter
>
> Both. Quite often, the two are indistinguishable to outsiders. One
> follows the other, in their estimation.
Granted, a self-identified furry artist choosing to bring erotica to a job
interview paints an unflattering portrait of not only the furry genre but the
producers of it as well. But still, most outsiders when exposed to something
like a genre of art for the first time are going to generate opinions about the
genre first, long before they generate opinions of the purveyors of said genre.
I'm sure folks have much more fully formed opinions about pornography than they
do about the people that produce it... I'm sure folks' opinion of the latter
would definitely be open to interpretation on an individual basis, and dependant
upon some first-hand knowledge or experience dealing with a particular
individual.
> > or anything that wouldn't be accepted at the AAC artshow. Why is this?
> I'm
> > convinced it's an unavoidable byproduct of the genre... any time you draw
> a
> > halfway decent human physique with fur, ears, and tail, the first thing
> people
> > will cue on is the fact that it's a human physique, and a sexy one. The
> second is
> > of course the fact that this "human" is part animal as well, and there
> you have
> > it- furry = sex.
> >
>
> Why does that naturally follow, unless you show a picture with a detailed
> rendering of humanoid aspects?
I don't know! All I'm saying is that from an empirical stance, it seems to.
Maybe because the pairing of human physical sexual cues and animal esthetic
elements is so unusual.
> Do you get that reaction, say, from showing
> an OZZY AND MILLIE strip to a non-fur? Or a KEVIN AND KELL? There are
> several artists who tend more towards broader cartoon characters; I doubt
> many of those would garner the same reaction. (At least, I hope not!)
Can't say I've done that experiment. I like pinup, the stuff that Michelle Light
and Wookiee and Terrie Smith do a lot of, and it's my collection of (mild!)
color prints that I'm most likely to show off to an outsider curious about all
the stuff on my walls. Maybe that's the problem, maybe I've biased it from the
outset. Maybe I should be handing them all a stack of PawPrints. :)
> I do gather your point, though, as there is a lot of material that skirts
> along the edge, in portraying furry morphs (or similar); there's no
> escaping that.
You're right, there is no escaping it. Once we admit to ourselves
that that there is sex in furrydom, we can then /move on/ and figure out how to
best present the sexualized aspects in as positive a light as possible, without
creating the impression that this is all there is to furrydom.
/This/ is how we're going to solve the "image problem", not by burying our heads
in the sand and shouting "furry is not about sex!!". We need to fess up, say
"yeah, there's sex in furrydom, quite a bit, but that's not all there is to it...
in many cases, it's just an unfortunate byproduct of the genre. Please look past
it if it bothers you; there's a lot of good stuff here to be found if one
can come to grips with the sexual element."
> > Granted, not all furry art is equally embedded in a sexualized context- a
> good
> > example of the latter, unsexed furry art is that recent ZU cover I
> mentioned by
> > Heather Riesen. But art like that is an exception, not the rule.
>
> If art like that was an exception, I'd have had -no- covers for ZU. Or
> interiors. Neither would FURRLOUGH.
I'll take your word for it. Maybe I'm a bit too immersed in the pinup ghetto. :)
I for one would love to see more art like that cover.
> > different response, I'm sure. It's not the people, and what we may or may
> not
> > have to say, it's the art. The art speaks for itself.
>
> It's not just the art that garners the attention, though. It wasn't art
> that attracted the attention of LOADED, but the fetshism. It wasn't the
> art, but the extreme behavior of a small segment of con-goers that drew the
> focus of BIZARRE.
Yes, but this focusing happened after the fact. It did take place, but that's
because it makes for good sleaze, and only after we had first been called to
their attention. As many others have said here in months past, it happened
because it was sensational, not because it was representative. It's unfortunate
that it happened this way, but it's to be expected given the nature of the
publications doing the coverage. It still doesn't mean that this is all we're
about, though, and it could be argued as to whether these publications /really/
create the impression that this /is/ all we're about.
*hic!* Pardon me... I'm on my second hefeweizen. ;)
> > I'm not convinced that what we, the fen, decide furry fandom's about
> makes
> > much of a difference at all. It's how outsiders, who have no point of
> > reference, perceive it that matters, at least when it comes to issues of
> public
> > relations.
>
> Yes. Exactly so. But if those perceptions are continually validated by
> the more visible and outrageous factions, then the perception will never
> alter, and furry will continue to play damage control into perpetuity.
Hmm. I'm not so sure that it follows that these "outrageous factions" have that
much power to make or break our image when it comes to the personal context.
Anyone with half a brain showing up to a convention or a furmeet or a furry
room party will be able to figure out that it's /not/ all about sex, even if
there are some elements in the fandom that appear to fixate on those elements.
As for the need to play damage control, well, I think that would be a bit easier
if we'd all just admit that the element is there in the first place, rather than
denying it outright like a bunch of two-bit politicians. At least then we'd be
leaving the PR starting blocks on the right foot. Or paw, as the case may be.
Okie, I've lost my eloquence for th' evening. Off to the showers with me. :)
Doodles
>Where are the more specialized mags like COMICS JOURNAL or STARLOG?
I can't speak for any of the other mags you mention, but the Journal's
website did make mention of their opinion of the fandom not very long
ago. With a very small number of exceptions, they find development in
the genre moribund and uninteresting, an assessment I'm hard pressed
to challenge. Face it, furry has one hell of a lot higher goals to
strive for compared to the typical spandex action. All one has to do
is hold up a copy of MAUS...
Tom Spurgeon [Editor in Chief for the Journal at the time] posted a
couple of messages about their opinion on the subject here on a.f.f.
A brief search of Deja News should find them.
Unca Spooge, watching things progress.
Doodles
wrote:
>Now that I think about it maybe a Peter Jackson festival would be a nice to
>have (all his films except for 'Frighteners'- bleech!)
>
>The following day the films to be screened could include (not necessarily in
>this order): 'Trainspotting', 'M', 'A CLockwork Orange', 'Welcome to the
>Dollouse', 'Martin', 'Apocalypse Now', 'Man Bites Dog' (French Film), and of
>course 'Henry'.
Keeping things furry, how about "Silence of the Lambs?" =};-3
Unca Spooge, with some fava beans and a /nice/ chianti...
Ron Orr...& Tirran
> Ack. MORE WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT!
>
> I read that as "Microsoft Foreplay".
>
> "Where do you want to go today?"
>
> "Third Base!"
>
> (cue Abbot and Costello)
After waiting an hour or so to let my sides heal... that is
_the_ funniest thing I've seen on Usenet in months...
Ron
A&C fan
David Tapia
doo...@cheezies.primenet.com (Doodles) wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 1998 08:00:52 GMT, David Tapia <tap...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Now that I think about it maybe a Peter Jackson festival would be a nice to
> >have (all his films except for 'Frighteners'- bleech!)
> >
> >The following day the films to be screened could include (not necessarily in
> >Dollouse', 'Martin', 'Apocalypse Now', 'Man Bites Dog' (French Film), and of
> >course 'Henry'.
>
> Keeping things furry, how about "Silence of the Lambs?" =};-3
Nice film but a bit too 'safe' (i.e. Hollyood-ish) in comparison to the other
films I suggested. And if you looked at the list carefully, there is the
French film 'Man Bites _Dog_' if you want to keep things furry. Thanks for
the suggestion anyway. Shouldn't this discussion be splitered off from this
thread now?
Richard de Wylfin
~to be sex mags. The only exception was the WIRED article of a couple of
~years ago, and even that was slanted towards sex. Where are the more
~mainstream press such as TIME or NEWSWEEK?
Maybe you don't remember the brief bit in the New York Times Magazine
a while ago, showing James Firmiss in his skunk suit. No mention of
sex whatever.
^ ^
o-o
+
richard de wylfin http://i.am/a.furry.fox
Locandez
<cp...@zipcon.net> wrote:
> By saying only 'furries is about funny-animals', which is true,
Not all furry characters are _funny_ animals...
Locandez
--
Blank Furvey: http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/lyndale/home/surveys/furvey.txt
My email address has been deliberately modified to prevent spam. If you would
like to send me mail, replace the 7 random letters in the address with the
word 'lyndale'.
"Canine, feline; Jeckle and Hyde. Wear your fake fur on the inside" - "A Change Will Do You Good"
Mutt
I wouldn't say that. There's lotsa serious & realistic animals too.
--
^v^
Blessed be,
Mutt the Pagan Fur
http://www.flash.net/~kitsune
Chuck Melville
of the article. What was the gist and the focus of the article?
--
-Chuck Melville-
"We'd like to buy a cat. Preferably one with a history of mental illness."
Richard de Wylfin <dwy...@usa.net> wrote in article
<dwylfin-2707...@1cust65.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net>...
> In article <01bdb8c5$0dcdc860$LocalHost@kathleen>, "Chuck Melville"
> <cp...@zipcon.net> wrote:
>
>
> ~to be sex mags. The only exception was the WIRED article of a couple of
> ~years ago, and even that was slanted towards sex. Where are the more
> ~mainstream press such as TIME or NEWSWEEK?
Chuck Melville
> > Consider that the -only- publications writing about furry
appear
> > to be sex mags. The only exception was the WIRED article of a couple
of
> > years ago, and even that was slanted towards sex. Where are the more
> > mainstream press such as TIME or NEWSWEEK? Where are the more
specialized
>
> I don't know. I don't have many very good ideas as to why we're not
covered in
> the mainstream press, but I'm not convinced that it's because of some
sexual
> reputation which we may or may not have among the press corps. I think it
has
> more to do with our size. YMMV, of course... this is very subjective
territory.
> Any evidence one way or the other would be much welcome.
Considering the number of furry conventions in existance, and those new
ones cropping up -- and the fact that Confurence is approaching its tenth
year -- and the number of furry books that have been published over the
past decade, and that there is an active fandom, I find it odd that there
have been only two articles written about furry fandom over those ten years
(AMAZING HEROES #129 and the more recent CBG this past year). At the very
least, its strong and growing presence on the internet alone should warrant
curiosity by one or another magazine.
But it's the sexual aspect and presence that gets the notice, and
therefore winds up being written about.
> ... I'm not convinced that it immediately follows that
just
> because furrydom is only treated and publicized by the exploiters of sex
that
> furrydom is necessarily nothing but sex. I'm not even convinced that this
is a
> perception that these magazines are attempting to portray. All I think it
> suggests is that folks who are looking for a new sexual fantasy have a
good
> chance of finding something of interest to them in furrydom, and that the
editors
> and reporters of these sexually-targeted magazines have shrewdly picked
up on
> this element of furry fandom. This doesn't necessarily mean, however that
> furrydom is exclusively about sex.
No, but it -does- indicate that the editors and writers of those
publications apparently -believes- that it does.
> It's like a magazine that caters to collectors
> covering a civil war convention... sure, for some folks, collecting civil
war
> memorabilia is the reason for their involvement in the "civil war
commmunity",
> for others it might be the rendezvouses (!) or the reenactments or the
general
> historical interest of the thing that holds the appeal. Granted, it may
in fact
> be a very small percentage of the participants of a civil war convention
who are
> there to collect memorabilia, but they are there nonetheless and
outsiders who
> like to collect may enjoy taking advantage of the opportunities their
presence
> affords. That doesn't mean that's all there is to a civil war convention,
> though... and I don't think most folks reading such an article would
necessarily
> assume such right off the bat, either.
>
> Yeesh. Here's hoping the analogy holds... :)
>
I'm afraid that it doesn't.
Civil War afficiandos are interested in all aspects of the War: the
history, the people, the weapons, the battles, etc. There is little to
nothing about sex involved with the war: you won't see a lot of Civil War
eroticism, therefore no reason to believe there is anything sexually sleazy
about the Civil War.
> All I'm saying is that from an empirical stance, it seems
to.
> Maybe because the pairing of human physical sexual cues and animal
esthetic
> elements is so unusual.
>
I wonder what it is that you mean by 'sexual cues'? Are you referring to
secondary sexual characteristics, like female breasts, or (as I generally
understand the phrase) implicit or explicit body language? If the latter,
these are only going to be seen in the risque and adult material; if the
former, I fail to understand why anyone should interpret a humanoid
construction as being -sexy- unless the sexual characteristics were being
deliberately overemphasized.
But, however you interpret the phrase, not all furry work contains sexual
cues. Where was it in LION KING, a
story of intrigue and murder (unless you include the -romantic- interlude
with Nala? Not really sexual.)? Where are they with ITCHY AND SCRATCHY?
SONIC THE HEDGEHOG? Putting a pair of breasts on a female funny-animal
isn't so much a sexual cue as it is a recognition that the character -is-
female. 'Sexual cue' is reading too much into it.
Usually, anyway.
> > I do gather your point, though, as there is a lot of material that
skirts
> > along the edge, in portraying furry morphs (or similar); there's no
> > escaping that.
>
> You're right, there is no escaping it. Once we admit to ourselves
> that that there is sex in furrydom, we can then /move on/ and figure out
how to
> best present the sexualized aspects in as positive a light as possible,
without
> creating the impression that this is all there is to furrydom.
>
That wasn't quite what I'd had in mind. The sexualized aspects get quite
enough free press on their own. Rather, we need to figure out how to best
present the -rest- of anthropomorphics in as broad and as positive a
fashion as possible.
> /This/ is how we're going to solve the "image problem", not by burying
our heads
> in the sand and shouting "furry is not about sex!!". We need to fess up,
say
> "yeah, there's sex in furrydom, quite a bit, but that's not all there is
to it...
> in many cases, it's just an unfortunate byproduct of the genre. Please
look past
> it if it bothers you; there's a lot of good stuff here to be found if one
> can come to grips with the sexual element."
>
I'm pretty much in agreement here, except I don't see a need to mention
the sex aspect right off. It'll get noticed, and it can get introduced
by-and-by; best not to squick outsiders right off the bat -- let them warm
up by seeing the -rest- of the furry works -first-. It may make the sexier
stuff a little easier to handle.
> > It's not just the art that garners the attention, though. It wasn't
art
> > that attracted the attention of LOADED, but the fetshism. It wasn't
the
> > art, but the extreme behavior of a small segment of con-goers that drew
the
> > focus of BIZARRE.
>
> Yes, but this focusing happened after the fact. It did take place, but
that's
> because it makes for good sleaze, and only after we had first been called
to
> their attention. As many others have said here in months past, it
happened
> because it was sensational, not because it was representative. It's
unfortunate
> that it happened this way, but it's to be expected given the nature of
the
> publications doing the coverage. It still doesn't mean that this is all
we're
> about, though, and it could be argued as to whether these publications
/really/
> create the impression that this /is/ all we're about.
As far as outsiders are concerned, it -is- what we're all about. It's the
-perception-, remember? I agree the articles were written cheifly for the
sensationalism... but there are no countering reports being written for any
other magazines, and consequently nothing to indicate that there -is- a
major fallacy to those articles labeling the cons and fandom as a sexfest.
It occurs to me that the -only- positive comments about the con are
usually posted here on the newsgroups, where it falls on the ears (eyes?)
of the already converted, but never to the general public. One interesting
project for an industrious furry writer might be to compile several of
those reports (with permission from the contributing posters) into a
feature article for one of the SF or Fantasy magazines. -That- would be a
major step in producing a positive overview of Furry, and -might- (I only
say -might-) turn the tide how we're perceived and reported upon in the
future.
It might be an uphill battle, but the results might be worth it in the
long run.
> Hmm. I'm not so sure that it follows that these "outrageous factions"
have that
> much power to make or break our image when it comes to the personal
context.
> Anyone with half a brain showing up to a convention or a furmeet or a
furry
> room party will be able to figure out that it's /not/ all about sex, even
if
> there are some elements in the fandom that appear to fixate on those
elements.
Anyone who walks into the dealer's room might only just have their first
impressions cemented once they see the availability of suggestive and
explicit material at most dealer's tables. Or in the art show.
> Okie, I've lost my eloquence for th' evening. Off to the showers with me.
:)
>
And eloquent it was. You do good conversation/discussion.
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
> It occurs to me that the -only- positive comments about the con are
> usually posted here on the newsgroups, where it falls on the ears (eyes?)
> of the already converted, but never to the general public. One interesting
> project for an industrious furry writer might be to compile several of
> those reports (with permission from the contributing posters) into a
> feature article for one of the SF or Fantasy magazines. -That- would be a
> major step in producing a positive overview of Furry, and -might- (I only
> say -might-) turn the tide how we're perceived and reported upon in the
> future.
Great idea. Sounds strangely familiar.
It would certainly do more to improve furry's image than the ongoing flamewars
here would.
How does that saying go again? "If you don't like what's being reported on
the news, go make your own..."?
Or words to that effect.
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C.
Allen Kitchen
> Chuck Melville wrote:
> > It occurs to me that the -only- positive comments about the con are
> > usually posted here on the newsgroups, where it falls on the ears
(eyes?)
> > of the already converted, but never to the general public. One
interesting
> > project for an industrious furry writer might be to compile several of
> > those reports (with permission from the contributing posters) into a
> > feature article for one of the SF or Fantasy magazines. -That- would
be a
> > major step in producing a positive overview of Furry, and -might- (I
only
> > say -might-) turn the tide how we're perceived and reported upon in the
> > future.
Oooh! A challenge :) Make a furry con report that the SciFi magazines
(such as Analog I suppose) would accept. Talk about writing for a hostile
audience! Still, I'll give it a shot after MFM.
What is the typical wordcount of such a review? And does anyone have
a similar review handy that I can look at for starters?
Allen Kitchen (shockwave, ever writing, usually code...)
http://www.blkbox.com/~osprey/
Farlo
>
Reverend? As in, "Give us this day our daily Squeaky Toy?"?
=:)
I know what K.F.C. stands for - what's K.S.C.?
-------------------
Farlo m>*_*<m
Urban Fey Dragon
Standard XXXX
@abac.com XXXX
-------------------
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
> Reverend? As in, "Give us this day our daily Squeaky Toy?"?
Yes.
> I know what K.F.C. stands for - what's K.S.C.?
Keeper of the Sacred Clydesdale. -:)
Wanderer
(snip)
> As far as outsiders are concerned, it -is- what we're all about. It's the
>-perception-, remember? I agree the articles were written cheifly for the
>sensationalism... but there are no countering reports being written for any
>other magazines, and consequently nothing to indicate that there -is- a
>major fallacy to those articles labeling the cons and fandom as a sexfest.
>
To be honest, Chuck, I don't know that the articles everyone here keeps
talking about are all that "mainstream". Certainly, *I* never heard of them
before I arrived on AFF and saw everyone complaining about them. The only
one that seems "mainstream" from my recent-outsider point of view would be
the TV news report on furryfans ... and, be fair, they completely glossed
over any possible sexual connotations. Of course, they made it pretty darn
clear that they consider furryfans to be a bunch of harmless crazies ... but
they never mentioned sex!;>
Wired, Loaded ... these magazines don't exactly have a wide circulation here
in Texas, so I couldn't tell you how big an impact they'll actually have on
the public in terms of overall distribution. And, fursonally, I've never
run across anyone in my area that equates furries with sex ... usually, they
equate furries with children's books and cartoons in my area (around here,
RPGs are the big bugaboo ... we get a lot of Chick tracts).
So bear in mind in the future (though I'll wolf it in mind, myself;) that
the picture we, as furry fans, perceive is one miniscule portion of what the
"outside world" sees ... and we're just not a very high priority compared to
Kenneth Starr, Monica Lewinsky, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Muammar
Quaddafi, and cloning.
Yours with the big picture,
The wolfish,
Wanderer**wand...@applink.net
Where am I going?I don't quite know.
What does it matter where people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow.
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I*don't know!
Chuck Melville
Locandez <wgi...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in article
<na.8d2457486c...@argonet.co.uk>...
> In article <01bdb8b1$aab431a0$LocalHost@kathleen>, "Chuck Melville"
>
I won't quibble over the term; call it anthropomorphics if you prefer.
Anything to keep from being sidetracked from the main context.
--
Dan Pankratz
> Considering the number of furry conventions in existance, and those new
<snip>
> past decade, and that there is an active fandom, I find it odd that there
> have been only two articles written about furry fandom over those ten years
As do I...
> But it's the sexual aspect and presence that gets the notice, and
> therefore winds up being written about.
Yes, but it's not like Newsweek did an article on us that emphasized the sex.
It's Loaded doing an article on us that emphasizes the sex, and it think it's
important to realize that it's the slease mags doing the biased reporting.
DeWylfin mentioned the NYT article and I think he said that they did a
relatively even-handed job of it, without mentioning the sexual fetishism that
sometimes accompanies fursuiting. I'd be curious to see how more mainstream
publications chose to cover us... and I suspect strongly that they would do a
much less biased, much more professional job, Wired notwithstanding.
> > and reporters of these sexually-targeted magazines have shrewdly picked
> up on
> > this element of furry fandom. This doesn't necessarily mean, however that
>
> > furrydom is exclusively about sex.
>
> No, but it -does- indicate that the editors and writers of those
> publications apparently -believes- that it does.
Or, that they believe that this is what they can sell to their readership.
> about the Civil War.
>
> > All I'm saying is that from an empirical stance, it seems
> to.
> > Maybe because the pairing of human physical sexual cues and animal
> esthetic
> > elements is so unusual.
> >
>
> I wonder what it is that you mean by 'sexual cues'? Are you referring to
> secondary sexual characteristics, like female breasts, or (as I generally
> understand the phrase) implicit or explicit body language?
Both...
> If the latter,
> these are only going to be seen in the risque and adult material; if the
> former, I fail to understand why anyone should interpret a humanoid
> construction as being -sexy- unless the sexual characteristics were being
> deliberately overemphasized.
I'm not saying that slapping on breasts always makes a drawing "sexy", what I'm
saying is that it makes the drawing _sexed_... it gives sex to a creature with
animal attributes, which, while not quite as extreme and novel (to an outsider)
as making a creature with animal attributes sexy, it is nevertheless on the same
continuum, and may be enough to trigger the "WTF? That cat has tits!" reflex in
somebody.
Obviously, we're now talking about the gray area of furry art. For instance, many
of the morphs in PawPrints have obvious female secondary sex characteristics and
modes of dress, yet they are almost never extrovertedly erotic. Is this enough
to trigger the "furry = sex" knee-jerk? At this point it probably depends a whole
lot on both the viewer and the piece in question.
> But, however you interpret the phrase, not all furry work contains sexual
> cues.
Of course. And many of the works you mention, TLK et al, don't offend folks'
sensibilities when it comes to sex. But let me add one thing... while furry fans
might call them furry, it is important to realize that these are examples of
_mainstream_ furry art... art designed for "consumption" by non-furry fans. It
would make sense for them not to trigger people's sexual buzzers.
> Putting a pair of breasts on a female funny-animal
> isn't so much a sexual cue as it is a recognition that the character -is-
> female. 'Sexual cue' is reading too much into it.
> Usually, anyway.
Yeah, but the funny-animal so depicted is female /in a human way/. That's where
things, in the mind of a mundane, can get weird... Nala and Pinky aren't really
female and male in a way that one would call human; at least as far as their
bodies are concerned, they're little more than talking, thinking animals.
They're /certainly/ not human in the way that Chester is.
> > You're right, there is no escaping it. Once we admit to ourselves
> > that that there is sex in furrydom, we can then /move on/ and figure out
> how to
> > best present the sexualized aspects in as positive a light as possible,
> without
> > creating the impression that this is all there is to furrydom.
> >
>
> That wasn't quite what I'd had in mind. The sexualized aspects get quite
> enough free press on their own. Rather, we need to figure out how to best
> present the -rest- of anthropomorphics in as broad and as positive a
> fashion as possible.
Yeah, but to me, if you never mention it, it's like you're hiding something.
I personally never like it when someone in a position of spokesperson
intentionally leaves something out... in our case, it might imply that we're
embarassed or shamed by it, and while we may or may not be on a personal level,
(I'm not) I think it's dangerous to create the impression that we are... for
the simple reason that this gives the impression that human-sexed furry art is
something to be ashamed of.
_That's_ my biggest concern... if we go around acting like the sexy stuff is
perverted, then the folks whom we introduce to the fandom can't help but to pick
up on that. If we are open about it and brush it off like the minor and
not-a-big-deal kind of thing that I feel it is, they will be more likely to have
a more harmless opinion of it. At least, that's my feeling for things.
> I'm pretty much in agreement here, except I don't see a need to mention
> the sex aspect right off. It'll get noticed, and it can get introduced
> by-and-by; best not to squick outsiders right off the bat -- let them warm
> up by seeing the -rest- of the furry works -first-. It may make the sexier
> stuff a little easier to handle.
Yeah, okay, but when the time comes to say "oh yeah, by the way..." I think it's
important not to present it like it's something to be ashamed of /in general/...
individual modes of expression may be more or less distasteful, but the
idea in general of sexualized furry art should not be.
There's nothing inherently wrong with our genre, folks. We have nothing to
be ashamed of. Let's not give the rest of the world the impression that we are,
hard as it may be sometimes.
>
> As far as outsiders are concerned, it -is- what we're all about. It's the
> -perception-, remember? I agree the articles were written cheifly for the
> sensationalism... but there are no countering reports being written for any
> other magazines, and consequently nothing to indicate that there -is- a
> major fallacy to those articles labeling the cons and fandom as a sexfest.
How can you say that this is what _all_ outsiders think we're about when not
all outsiders have spoken? Only a subset of the media universe have given us
press, and it's a subset who are biased towards the marketing and exploiting of
sex... it's not a random sample of all media publications that have some
hypothesized uniformly sex-biased view of this fandom.
> of the already converted, but never to the general public. One interesting
> project for an industrious furry writer might be to compile several of
> those reports (with permission from the contributing posters) into a
Great idea!
> And eloquent it was. You do good conversation/discussion.
Gosh, thanks! :)
Now, if only some progress comes from all this...
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
> Now, if only some progress comes from all this...
Nah, this is alt.fan.furry. It's a time-honored tradition in this newsgroup
that people should complain about articles that focus on the sexual part of
furry fandom, but not do anything about it except conjure up images of mass
graves and other final solutions.
I mean, if someone really wanted to have magazines like TIME and NEWSWEEK
write articles about furry fandom, it couldn't hurt for them to Do Something
Productive like... gee, I dunno... write up a press release to get the
media's attention...
<SARCASM>
But that'll NEVER work, since it doesn't involve flaming people.
</SARCASM>
XYDEXX'S HANDY PRESS RELEASE FORM:
(Your Organization)
(Street Address)
(City,State,Province,Zip,Postal Code)
(TITLE OF YOUR PRESS RELEASE)
(Subtitle, optional)
For Immediate Release
(Date)
Contact: (Your Name)
(Your Organization)
(Your Phone Number)
(City) --- (Type the body text of your press release here)
William Haskell
>
snip-1
> Wired, Loaded ... these magazines don't exactly have a wide circulation here
> in Texas, so I couldn't tell you how big an impact they'll actually have on
> the public in terms of overall distribution.
I've had a subscription to WIRED for several years, I make a point of
reading issue from cover to cover at least twice (usually with a cruel
smirk on my face at the bombastic predictions that somehow never quite
come off) and I be dam'd if I can remember seeing anything about furry
fandom in any issue. Maybe I missed it - but in any case, it certainly
must not have been particularly lurid enough to draw my attention.
LOADED I would never have heard of at all if someone had not been
kind(?) enough to raise a whoop here on AFF about an article that
appeared in one issue.
So much for the power of the press. >:D
Chuck Melville
xyd...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<6pq8io$auf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> Dan Pankratz wrote:
> > Now, if only some progress comes from all this...
>
> Nah, this is alt.fan.furry. It's a time-honored tradition in this
newsgroup
> that people should complain about articles that focus on the sexual part
of
> furry fandom, but not do anything about it except conjure up images of
mass
> graves and other final solutions.
Complaints -can- give way to intelligent discussion and tentative actions;
I happen to think there -is- some progress being made here.
Of course, we -could- just bray about how all the sexual excesses being
reported on just don't really exist...
> I mean, if someone really wanted to have magazines like TIME and NEWSWEEK
> write articles about furry fandom, it couldn't hurt for them to Do
Something
> Productive like... gee, I dunno... write up a press release to get the
> media's attention...
A press release is -not- what we want. Nothing sounds or smells phonier
than a press release; they're generally snow jobs, glossing over everything
and projecting only a glorified version of a product. And that is not what
we're trying to achieve.
We want to present the full range of anthro fandom: the books, the art,
the websites, the fans. We want to make it known that the fetishism so
prominently displayed in the sex mags is an incredibly minor segment.
While the sexier stories and art should be played down, they can't and
shouldn't be ignored, and need to be approached carefully.
> <SARCASM>
> But that'll NEVER work, since it doesn't involve flaming people.
> </SARCASM>
>
Ah. And you're supplying the flames to make it official, then?
--
Chuck Melville
> In article <01bdb98f$222a47a0$LocalHost@kathleen>, "Chuck Melville"
<cp...@zipcon.net> writes:
>
> Yes, but it's not like Newsweek did an article on us that emphasized the
sex.
> It's Loaded doing an article on us that emphasizes the sex,
It's the numbers that count. If three or six sleazy mags write about
furry, and one or two mainstream mags write about furry, there's an
unhealthy tipping of the scales there, and that does influence opinions,
even if unfairly.
> > No, but it -does- indicate that the editors and writers of those
> > publications apparently -believes- that it does.
>
> Or, that they believe that this is what they can sell to their
readership.
>
Same difference. One follows the other.
> I'm not saying that slapping on breasts always makes a drawing "sexy",
what I'm
> saying is that it makes the drawing _sexed_... it gives sex to a creature
with
> animal attributes, which, while not quite as extreme and novel (to an
outsider)
> as making a creature with animal attributes sexy, it is nevertheless on
the same
> continuum, and may be enough to trigger the "WTF? That cat has tits!"
reflex in
> somebody.
Which I find to be an odd reaction, unless the cat was unclothed and it's
tits were exposed... in which case, it -would- be a sexed drawing. I've
never known anyone to have that reaction otherwise. Gender is gender.
> > But, however you interpret the phrase, not all furry work contains
sexual
> > cues.
>
> Of course. And many of the works you mention, TLK et al, don't offend
folks'
> sensibilities when it comes to sex. But let me add one thing... while
furry fans
> might call them furry, it is important to realize that these are examples
of
> _mainstream_ furry art... art designed for "consumption" by non-furry
fans. It
> would make sense for them not to trigger people's sexual buzzers.
But what about Sawyer in CATS CAN'T DANCE? She's sexy, and this was a
mainstream film.
I think the problem here is we're putting too much emphasis on the
physcial appearance when we're trying to define a character's sexiness (you
can tell we're a couple of guys, can't ya?) -- sexy is a projected
attitude. Mae West was sexy. Brigitte Bardot was sexy. Madonna is --
well, she's Madonna.
Well, I don't mean that it should be brushed off. I agree that it would
be worse for us if we tried to do that. All I'm saying is that it be
downplayed, addressed only if brought up, or displayed for discussion in
small doses until it became more generally understood. However...
> > I'm pretty much in agreement here, except I don't see a need to
mention
> > the sex aspect right off. It'll get noticed, and it can get introduced
> > by-and-by; best not to squick outsiders right off the bat -- let them
warm
> > up by seeing the -rest- of the furry works -first-. It may make the
sexier
> > stuff a little easier to handle.
>
> Yeah, okay, but when the time comes to say "oh yeah, by the way..." I
think it's
> important not to present it like it's something to be ashamed of /in
general/...
> individual modes of expression may be more or less distasteful, but the
> idea in general of sexualized furry art should not be.
>
> There's nothing inherently wrong with our genre, folks. We have nothing
to
> be ashamed of. Let's not give the rest of the world the impression that
we are,
> hard as it may be sometimes.
>
...as to having nothing to be ashamed of, I think this brings us back to
the original discussion of why I prefer not to call myself a Furry.
Becaue, in part, I think there -are- aspects and works that we -should- be
ashamed of.
> >
> > As far as outsiders are concerned, it -is- what we're all about. It's
the
> > -perception-, remember? I agree the articles were written cheifly for
the
> > sensationalism... but there are no countering reports being written for
any
> > other magazines, and consequently nothing to indicate that there -is- a
> > major fallacy to those articles labeling the cons and fandom as a
sexfest.
>
> How can you say that this is what _all_ outsiders think we're about when
not
> all outsiders have spoken? Only a subset of the media universe have given
us
> press, and it's a subset who are biased towards the marketing and
exploiting of
> sex... it's not a random sample of all media publications that have some
> hypothesized uniformly sex-biased view of this fandom.
>
Rumors travel. Besides, again, if the majority of articles written about
furry emphasize the seamy side, then that's the only opinion that will take
seed and be remembered. And this is an opinion already held by
professionals in the book publishing and animation fields, as already
mentioned here in the past by those who have had dealings there.
Dan Pankratz
> > > But, however you interpret the phrase, not all furry work contains
> sexual
> > > cues.
> >
> > Of course. And many of the works you mention, TLK et al, don't offend
> folks'
> > sensibilities when it comes to sex. But let me add one thing... while
> furry fans
> > might call them furry, it is important to realize that these are examples
> of
> > _mainstream_ furry art... art designed for "consumption" by non-furry
> fans. It
> > would make sense for them not to trigger people's sexual buzzers.
>
> But what about Sawyer in CATS CAN'T DANCE? She's sexy, and this was a
> mainstream film.
I suppose she was. I didn't find her physically attractive, though I did very
much like her character... she and Danny were too cartoony for me. (Remember, I'm
a big fan of beef/cheesecake...) A little bit of 'toon can go a long way to
blunting any sexual realism. But I digress.
> Well, I don't mean that it should be brushed off. I agree that it would
> be worse for us if we tried to do that. All I'm saying is that it be
> downplayed, addressed only if brought up, or displayed for discussion in
> small doses until it became more generally understood. However...
>
<snip>
> > There's nothing inherently wrong with our genre, folks. We have nothing
> to
> > be ashamed of. Let's not give the rest of the world the impression that
> we are,
> > hard as it may be sometimes.
> >
> ...as to having nothing to be ashamed of, I think this brings us back to
> the original discussion of why I prefer not to call myself a Furry.
> Becaue, in part, I think there -are- aspects and works that we -should- be
> ashamed of.
*sigh* There are things going on in the fringes which squick /me/ all to hell as
well. I have my personal mores, as does everybody; I just try to avoid letting
them color what I have to say to outsiders when I'm in the position of spokesfur,
that's all. I'd rather try to give these outsiders as good a chance as possible
at forming an opinion of furrydom's elements as true to their own selves as
possible, and as free from the taint of any of my own prejudices as I can manage.
Well, as free from the taint of my own /negative/ prejudices, anyway. I'll rave
like a madman about something I like with a clear conscience anyday. :)
I however don't let the presence of these elements make me ashamed to
self-identify as a furry fan... or I try not to, anyway. For me, it is
important to keep in mind that, despite what can seem at times to be a yawning
moral chasm between me and some other folks, there is a good chance that we
share something in common- something furry. We may like the same book, or
appreciate the same artist. We may both post to a.f.f., or have spent time on
a.l.f., or maybe even both have a thing for coyotes. For me, those things in
furrydom which appeal to me touch me on such a deep level that I am instantly
willing to cut a great deal of slack to someone professing to have a similar
affectation, slack I might never cut a non-fan. But hey, such are the perils of
being touchy-feely. :)
Chuck Melville
<6pr965$t0s$1...@news.hal-pc.org>...
> I've had a subscription to WIRED for several years, I make a point of
> reading issue from cover to cover at least twice (usually with a cruel
> smirk on my face at the bombastic predictions that somehow never quite
> come off) and I be dam'd if I can remember seeing anything about furry
> fandom in any issue. Maybe I missed it - but in any case, it certainly
> must not have been particularly lurid enough to draw my attention.
March, 1994. Cover blurb: "MUDs: Sex with the FurryMuckers" The article
is on page 92, titled: "Johnny Manhattan Meets the FurryMuckers"
Ironically, the article focusses more on LambdaMOO, but does eventually get
around to discussing FM.
--
Allen Kitchen
Chuck Melville <cp...@zipcon.net> wrote in article
<01bdbbe3$343b1720$LocalHost@kathleen>...
> William Haskell <"forban"@[204.52.135.1]> wrote in article
> <6pr965$t0s$1...@news.hal-pc.org>...
>
> > I've had a subscription to WIRED for several years
> March, 1994. Cover blurb: "MUDs: Sex with the FurryMuckers" The
article
> is on page 92, titled: "Johnny Manhattan Meets the FurryMuckers"
This can also be seen online at
http://www.wired.com/wired/2.03/features/muds.html
I found it very amusing that he came onto FM as a tuna, and the wolves
tried to
eat him. Pure propoganda! Everyone knows it's the felines who love tuna!
:)
Allen Kitchen (shockwave, a wolf who hates seafood)
http://www.blkbox.com/~osprey/
Peter da Silva
>article <35BAFF...@spammy.aol.com>...
>> Chuck Melville wrote:
>> > Well, shucks, Xydexx, a lot of the folks who don't want to call
>themselves
>> > 'furry' don't even -have- to say furry is all about sex...
>>
>> I know, they don't _have_ to. But they still do anyway. -:P
>
> Sure. In order to point out the lie in your repeated claims that it
>-isn't- about sex.
God damn, Chuck, that's a lame debating trick... he says Firry isn't
"all about sex", and you come back with the claim that he said it wasn't
"about sex". There is a significant difference between these two
statements. And it's not that you don't have a case without resorting
to unfair tactics... it's just not as strong as you'd like, or something.
(I mean, we've been over your mitivations in the past and I sure don't
claim to understand them...)
(But regardless, this IS a lame debating trick)
--
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
Peter da Silva
Dan Pankratz <rans...@au-au.extern.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>people, or the art? I'm convinced it's the latter. Every non-fur I've ever shown
>furry art to has picked up on the fact that it screams sex- and I have yet to
>show an outsider anything that would garner an NC-17 rating in the CF artshow,
>or anything that wouldn't be accepted at the AAC artshow. Why is this? I'm
>convinced it's an unavoidable byproduct of the genre... any time you draw a
>halfway decent human physique with fur, ears, and tail, the first thing people
>will cue on is the fact that it's a human physique, and a sexy one. The second is
>of course the fact that this "human" is part animal as well, and there you have
>it- furry = sex.
Bah. Humbug. There's plenty you can find that doesn't scream sex if you look
for it. Steve Gallacci can do sexy stuff, but most of his ouvre is straight
military-SF action/adventure, for example.
Peter da Silva
Doodles <doo...@cheezies.primenet.com> wrote:
>I can't speak for any of the other mags you mention, but the Journal's
>website did make mention of their opinion of the fandom not very long
>ago. With a very small number of exceptions, they find development in
>the genre moribund and uninteresting, an assessment I'm hard pressed
>to challenge.
90% of everything is crud, and when the 100% isn't that big there's going
to be more trouble finding the 10% good stuff.
And since furry does seem to attract more marginal artists (possibly because
it's easier to hide skill problems if you're drawing something that doesn't
exist in reality... that's certainly MY excuse for my own shortcomings in
that area) the 10% is even smaller than that.
As for stories, let's see what we have:
1. Stories that happen to have furry characters instead of humans,
but don't otherwise take note of the species of the characters.
This works well in comics (Albedo, Omaha, Maus, etc) because you
can use the species as a visual analogue of race (which was most
obviously done in Maus and Fritz the Cat, and Disney even played
with this in Dumbo) or to help cue people in as to temprament and
attitude (as in Shanda, though it doesn't really fall into this
category, or Robin Hood).
It's less useful in print. You end up with a story that has random
references to fur or ears or "the Fox drew his bow and fired at
the fleeing Cat" but little more.
2. Stories like the above, that really use the species characteristics
as part of the story.
The Independant Lepine Republic has nothing rabbity about them.
Their being rabbits is a visual tag, not part of the story. The
animals in Maus... same deal. Something like Shanda, though,
flirts with this with the whole deal about "panda scent"... it's
not necessarily a real reflection of the way real pandas respond,
but it does have an effect on the society.
In writing, damn, I'm ashamed to admit I forgot the title or author,
but that story about the fox-taur fits into this and does it pretty
well. This stuff works in print, and I wish there was more of it.
There's a bit of this in Elf's Journal Entries, too.
3. Stories about how furries came to be.
Interesting, but not really enough to support a story. I started
writing one of these, but without something else to hang the story
on ... well ... it's been done too often.
4. First Contact stories.
Some of the stories in category three work as first contact stories.
The "Human Memoirs" takes this and combines it with the "Connecticut
Yankee" genre rather well. I like first contact stories (furry or
not, Invader is as cool as Pride of Chanur).
Anyway, where am I going with this? I've probably missed a few variants,
but where I'm going is simply that too many furry stories are either category
one or category three. Just having furries isn't enough to turn a bad story
into a good one, and until people learn this furry is going to continue to be
seen as moribund and uninteresting.
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
> Complaints -can- give way to intelligent discussion and tentative actions;
Only if directed at the people responsible or in a position to do something
about it.
> I happen to think there -is- some progress being made here.
I would, if I wasn't able to search DejaNews and cut and paste replies I made
two years ago to save me the trouble of repeating myself when these same tired
old flamewars come back again.
> Of course, we -could- just bray about how all the sexual excesses being
> reported on just don't really exist...
Well, at least -you- could.
I won't, because -I've- never said they don't really exist.
> A press release is -not- what we want. Nothing sounds or smells phonier
> than a press release; they're generally snow jobs, glossing over everything
> and projecting only a glorified version of a product. And that is not what
> we're trying to achieve.
If you say so. Let's hear your alternative.
> We want to present the full range of anthro fandom: the books, the art,
> the websites, the fans. We want to make it known that the fetishism so
> prominently displayed in the sex mags is an incredibly minor segment.
Ah. In other words, you want Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage. Duly noted.
> While the sexier stories and art should be played down, they can't and
> shouldn't be ignored, and need to be approached carefully.
Here, at least, we agree.
> > <SARCASM>
> > But that'll NEVER work, since it doesn't involve flaming people.
> > </SARCASM>
> >
> Ah. And you're supplying the flames to make it official, then?
Over two years of reading this newsgroup has convinced me that -any-
discussion --- regardless of how calm, reasonable, eloquent,
well-thought-out, or intelligent --- is a "flame". I can recall my previous
attempts at rational debate in this forum have been met with claims that I'm
organizing a boycott of MU Press, that I'm wearing rose-colored glasses and
ignoring problems, that I support bondage in public, that I have zoo links on
my webpage, and of course that I'm a fanboy.
I think you should worry more about the log in your eye rather than the
splinter in mine, Chuck.
Allen Kitchen
Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote in article
<6psq37$s...@bonkers.taronga.com>...
> 1. Stories that happen to have furry characters instead of humans,
> but don't otherwise take note of the species of the characters.
Depends on the story. I've seen plenty of these, yes. If the plot and
characters are interesting, I can pretend species isn't important.
> 2. Stories like the above, that really use the species characteristics
> as part of the story.
These take more skill, but are more fun to write IMHO. The captain
of a sinking vessel is an otter, even though otters aren't typically
disciplined for a life in the service. So why did I make him an otter?
Simple. He stays onboard the ship with his incapacitated wife,
even though he could easily escape. He dies with her. It adds to
the romantic tragic clencher at the end.
> 3. Stories about how furries came to be.
>
> Interesting, but not really enough to support a story.
Again, that depends on the story. I forget who did them, but the
stories with "the left hand of fate" could easily be published as a
scifi novel, and sell to non furrys. Especially today, with all the
hooplah over human gene tampering.
> 4. First Contact stories.
Usually limited to the SciFi crowd. "Double Stripes" is a
very good version of numbers 3 and 4.
> Anyway, where am I going with this? I've probably missed a few variants,
> but where I'm going is simply that too many furry stories are either
category
> one or category three. Just having furries isn't enough to turn a bad
story
> into a good one, and until people learn this furry is going to continue
to be
> seen as moribund and uninteresting.
Everyone has to start someplace. Characterization and development
don't just pop into a writer... they must be learned. And writers learn by
doing, just like artists do.
There are lots of furry stories now. 2-3 years ago, that was hardly the
case. I'm glad to see the genre grow to include and respect the stories
my friends and I dream up. Furry is in the same position that SciFi
was in the 50s. It will see an incredible transformation over the next
decade, with new blood and new ideas. And some of our writers and
artists will become big names in SciFi and furry one day, just as
Ellison is in SciFi today.
Me? Oh, I'll probably just keep plunking away for the fun of it :)
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
K. Xydexx Jorgensen
> Sure. In order to point out the lie in your repeated claims that it
>-isn't- about sex.
Are you calling me a liar, Mr. Melville? It sure -sounds- that way.
I am of the opinion that furry fandom is about anthropomorphics.
Period.
However, if that makes -me- a liar, then clearly that means -you- think
furry fandom is about sex. In which case why are you complaining about
articles like the one in Loaded?
Consider, for a moment, that unlike you, I do not make a distinction
between "furry" fans and the so-called "funny animal" fans, because
anthropomorphics are anthropomorphics.
Now consider, in the wave of notoriety surrounding my recent, unexpected
appearance in Bizarre, I was contacted by a German TV show called Peep.
I don't know much more about them, aside from the fact that they would
like to interview me.
I haven't given them my answer. Yet.
As you apparently believe furry fandom is all about sex, I'm sure you
won't mind a _funny_animal_fan_ like me granting them an interview to
tell them _all_about_furry_fandom_, right?
At least then you'll be able to flame me for something I actually said,
right?
Or do you owe me an apology?
__________________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
No-Longer-Obligated Former Ambassador To Furry Fandom
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (Think about what that means, okay?)
"Remember back when 'furry' meant 'funny animal'? It still does."
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> Chuck Melville wrote:
> > I happen to think there -is- some progress being made here.
>
> I would, if I wasn't able to search DejaNews and cut and paste replies
> I made two years ago to save me the trouble of repeating myself when
> these same tired old flamewars come back again.
So, in other words, you don't have anything new or useful to say, eh? :-)
> > Of course, we -could- just bray about how all the sexual
> > excesses being reported on just don't really exist...
>
> Well, at least -you- could.
>
> I won't, because -I've- never said they don't really exist.
I don't think anyone would ever accuse you of that, oh proud builder of the
inflatable clydesdale. After all, you were cited in the Bizarre atricle all
about weird sexual fetishes. You've got to be strange for a mag like that to
call you weird. :-)
(I was trying to stay out of the usual flame war. But I couldn't resist the
urge to try to rub the squeaky one the wrong way. Does it go "keeuqs"?)
--
"I don't believe in Guns."
"I Do! I've actually seen one!"
"Yeah, I hear that the Government has secret warehouses where they keep them."
--
"Yeah, I've got ADD, you wanna make something of.... oooh, cool. Look!"
--
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
Peter da Silva
Allen Kitchen <all...@blkbox.com> wrote:
>Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote in article
><6psq37$s...@bonkers.taronga.com>...
>> 1. Stories that happen to have furry characters instead of humans,
>> but don't otherwise take note of the species of the characters.
>Depends on the story. I've seen plenty of these, yes. If the plot and
>characters are interesting, I can pretend species isn't important.
In other words, they can be good in spite of the irrelevant furry
component?
>Everyone has to start someplace. Characterization and development
>don't just pop into a writer... they must be learned. And writers learn by
>doing, just like artists do.
Sure, sure. I don't expect everyone to mature instantly. Lord knows I've
got a long way to go. The thing is, I don't pretend that the stuff I'm doing
is good just because it is (or isn't) furry. I've seen furries promoting
stuff they or someone else did on the grounds that it's Furry.
See, I don't see a dearth of good furry stuff inherently a problem, and I
don't see that pushing stuff that's furry even if it can't really fly on its
own is doing furry any favors.
But you see stuff that's really pretty poor being published alongside
professional quality works in Furrlough or the back of Shanda. That's going
to keep the rep furry has for being unprofessional going.
>There are lots of furry stories now. 2-3 years ago, that was hardly the
>case.
Nicolai was publishing damn funny furry stories in Alarums and Excursions
20 years ago. And they were better than most of the ones I see today.
>I'm glad to see the genre grow to include and respect the stories
>my friends and I dream up. Furry is in the same position that SciFi
>was in the 50s.
I don't see that. Furry is just too specialised in one sense, and diffuse in
others. I really see no reason not to accept that and deal with it, instead
of trying to push it places it won't go.
>It will see an incredible transformation over the next
>decade, with new blood and new ideas. And some of our writers and
>artists will become big names in SciFi and furry one day, just as
>Ellison is in SciFi today.
Don't tell Harlan that. Or are you thinking of Donna Barr?
Chuck Melville
> Chuck Melville wrote:
> > Sure. In order to point out the lie in your repeated claims that
it
> >-isn't- about sex.
>
> Are you calling me a liar, Mr. Melville? It sure -sounds- that way.
My only surprise concerning this post is that it took you so long to
react. A lie of omission is still a lie. And as you frequently and
conveniently skirt around the issues by acting as though they don't exist
or have never occured, then you are committing a lie of omission.
> I am of the opinion that furry fandom is about anthropomorphics.
> Period.
Was someone just speaking a moment ago about "lame debating tactics"? We
dance around this distinction everytime the topic comes up. Furry fandom
is ostensibly about anthropomorphics. But the discussion has always been
about the -perception- of what the fandom is about, and the excesses that
cause that impression. But, as I say, everytime we slide into that
discussion, you immediately jump up and holler 'furry fandom is about
anthropomorphics', thereby sidestepping the real argument. It's a
smokescreen and a diversion.
> However, if that makes -me- a liar, then clearly that means -you- think
> furry fandom is about sex. In which case why are you complaining about
> articles like the one in Loaded?
And more lame tactics, ignoring everything that I've said to this point in
order to make a silogistic leap of logic. No, I don't think furry fandom
is about sex. I think that it has excesses and those excesses have created
the perception that it is about sex. I also think that the rise of furry
lifestylism and its sharing the furry label also adds to that perception.
> Consider, for a moment, that unlike you, I do not make a distinction
> between "furry" fans and the so-called "funny animal" fans, because
> anthropomorphics are anthropomorphics.
More smoke and sidestepping. You don't make a distinction between reading
funny-animal comics and boinking inflatable horses is what you mean. You
don't make a distinction between writing anthropomorphic fiction and
exploring one's inner furry self. You don't make a distinction between
being a cartoon addict and a zoophile.
You're right. I -do- make a distinction between these things.
> Now consider, in the wave of notoriety surrounding my recent, unexpected
> appearance in Bizarre, I was contacted by a German TV show called Peep.
> I don't know much more about them, aside from the fact that they would
> like to interview me.
>
> I haven't given them my answer. Yet.
>
> As you apparently believe furry fandom is all about sex, I'm sure you
> won't mind a _funny_animal_fan_ like me granting them an interview to
> tell them _all_about_furry_fandom_, right?
I would much prefer someone with less suspect credentials. If PEEP (a
show I know nothing of) is contacting -you- as a result of the BIZARRE
article, then already -their- motivations are suspect; it's a zeroing-in on
the excesses and bizarre practices again, and I wouldn't trust them -or-
you not to further the damage.
> At least then you'll be able to flame me for something I actually said,
> right?
>
> Or do you owe me an apology?
No apologies from me on this topic.
> "Remember back when 'furry' meant 'funny animal'? It still does."
>
That's true. Unfortunately, it also means lifestyler, fan, hirsute,
zoophile, fursuiter, and about a dozen more things. Too many definitions
for one little word.
I'll stick with just funny animals, or anthro. Much simpler, and more to
the point.
Chuck Melville
xyd...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<6pstr2$suu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> Chuck Melville wrote:
> > Complaints -can- give way to intelligent discussion and tentative
actions;
>
> Only if directed at the people responsible or in a position to do
something
> about it.
And so it was: to the interested folks right here on AFF, the main focal
point of furry fans on the Internet. We're all responsible; and any one of
us working together or independently -can- do something about it. I'm
encouraged by the dialogue with Dan and by the responses of both Catnel and
Allen. I don't expect EVERYBODY to jump up and act, and I don't expect
everyone to see eye-to-eye with me on this. But I'm heartened to see
-some- response, and to see there may be -some- actions taken... if only
tentatively.
> > I happen to think there -is- some progress being made here.
>
> I would, if I wasn't able to search DejaNews and cut and paste replies I
made
> two years ago to save me the trouble of repeating myself when these same
tired
> old flamewars come back again.
There would be no objection if you refrained from repeating yourself.
> > Of course, we -could- just bray about how all the sexual excesses
being
> > reported on just don't really exist...
>
> Well, at least -you- could.
>
> I won't, because -I've- never said they don't really exist.
Then you admit to playing coy and deliberately avoiding saying that furry
-is- about sex so far as outsiders can perceive.
> > A press release is -not- what we want. Nothing sounds or smells
phonier
> > than a press release; they're generally snow jobs, glossing over
everything
> > and projecting only a glorified version of a product. And that is not
what
> > we're trying to achieve.
>
> If you say so. Let's hear your alternative.
Perhaps I -will- write up an alternative. But I have quite enough on my
plate for the next couple of months as is; for the present, I'll leave that
challenge in other hands. For now.
>
> > We want to present the full range of anthro fandom: the books, the
art,
> > the websites, the fans. We want to make it known that the fetishism so
> > prominently displayed in the sex mags is an incredibly minor segment.
>
> Ah. In other words, you want Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage. Duly noted.
I think not. I think I'll wait to hear what a few of the others, like
Allan and Catnel, have to put forth.
--
Dan Pankratz
> As you apparently believe furry fandom is all about sex, I'm sure you
> won't mind a _funny_animal_fan_ like me granting them an interview to
> tell them _all_about_furry_fandom_, right?
<snip> __________________________________________________________________
> Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
> No-Longer-Obligated Former Ambassador To Furry Fandom
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (Think about what that means, okay?)
Do the right thing, Xy'.
K. Xydexx Jorgensen
> My only surprise concerning this post is that it took you so long to react.
Sorry, I don't read this newsgroup very often. (I'm starting to
remember why I stopped reading it to begin with.)
> A lie of omission is still a lie. And as you frequently and
> conveniently skirt around the issues by acting as though they don't exist
> or have never occured, then you are committing a lie of omission.
Ah, it's that tired old "Rose Colored Glasses" argument again.
Let me hazard a guess and say this is supposed to be some sort of weird
Catch-22 debating technique you're using here: If I say furry fandom is
about sex, I'm a raving spoogemonkey. If I say furry fandom is about
anthropomorphics, I'm a liar. If I write up factual reports about what
a fantastic time I have at furry conventions, I'm obviously wearing rose
colored glasses and ignoring problems (because it's a well known fact
that nobody ever has -any- fun at furry conventions). Have I left
anything out?
Oh yes... if I do something -really- outrageous like, say, ask for
corroborating evidence, names, places, times, or something other than
hearsay and gossip, then I'm someone who remembers that people can (and
have) posted wholly fictitious stuff on this newsgroup before. I'm
someone who doesn't necessarily believe everything he reads. I'm not as
gullible or easily-led as you'd like me to be. I mean, if -I- start
asking questions, the next thing you know -everyone- will.
I can see how that might make things uncomfortable for you. I must say
it certainly is a dubious honor to be so high on your list of People Who
Need To Be Discredited.
> Was someone just speaking a moment ago about "lame debating tactics"?
Yes. Yours, if I recall.
> dance around this distinction everytime the topic comes up. Furry fandom
> is ostensibly about anthropomorphics. But the discussion has always been
> about the -perception- of what the fandom is about, and the excesses that
> cause that impression. But, as I say, everytime we slide into that
> discussion, you immediately jump up and holler 'furry fandom is about
> anthropomorphics',
(O, the HORROR! Someone's saying furry fandom is about
ANTHROPOMORPHICS! We're all DOOMED!)
> thereby sidestepping the real argument. It's a
> smokescreen and a diversion.
No, it's the truth.
> I don't think furry fandom is about sex.
Neither do I, which makes me wonder why you're arguing with me in the
first place. Oh, wait... it's because I don't think furry fandom is
about sex, right? But wait, I thought you said that was a LIE:
"In order to point out the lie in your repeated claims that it
-isn't- about sex." --Chuck Melville, earlier this week
Wait a minute, I'm CONFUSED... so if I'M a liar for claiming furry
fandom isn't about sex, does that mean YOU'RE a liar TOO?
Our story so far:
* Xydexx says he thinks furry fandom isn't about sex.
* Chuck Melville says he doesn't think furry fandom is about sex.
Heh. This newsgroup can be such a fucking comedy routine sometimes.
> I think that it has excesses and those excesses have created
> the perception that it is about sex. I also think that the rise of furry
> lifestylism and its sharing the furry label also adds to that perception.
I think it's ironic that I'm getting called a liar (by you, of all
people) for saying furry fandom is about anthropomorphics. I guess the
old saying is true that you can't please everyone.
> More smoke and sidestepping. You don't make a distinction between reading
> funny-animal comics and boinking inflatable horses is what you mean.
Don't tell me what I mean, Chuck. That's an even lamer debate tactic
than your previous one. Besides, I'm in a better position to know what
I mean than you are, and you seem to be having enough trouble figuring
out what you mean yourself.
But I'll humor you anyway. It's fun:
You mean the distinction I make between furry fans and inflatable
fetishists, right? That's strike one.
> You
> don't make a distinction between writing anthropomorphic fiction and
> exploring one's inner furry self.
You mean the distinction I make between furry fans and furry
lifestylers, right? That's strike two.
> You don't make a distinction between
> being a cartoon addict and a zoophile.
You mean the distinction I make between furry fans and zoophiles,
right? Whaddya know, that's strike three. (Oh, there is no joy in
Melville, mighty Chuckie has struck out!)
From my side of the fence, it looks like -you're- the one having trouble
making the distinctions here.
> I would much prefer someone with less suspect credentials. If PEEP (a
> show I know nothing of) is contacting -you- as a result of the BIZARRE
> article, then already -their- motivations are suspect; it's a zeroing-in on
> the excesses and bizarre practices again, and I wouldn't trust them -or-
> you not to further the damage.
Ah, but you told me saying furry fandom was about anthropomorphics was a
LIE. A lie of omission is still a lie, right? Hey, just think, I
-might- actually get flamed for something I actually said for once. I
can't wait!
> No apologies from me on this topic.
Duly noted. I'll be sure to extend the same courtesy then.
> I'll stick with just funny animals, or anthro.
Gosh. Maybe I will too.
_______________________________________________________________
Big Bad Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
No-Longer-Obligated Former Ambassador To Furry Fandom
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (Some People Just Don't Get It...)
"Remember back when 'funny animals' got mentioned on 'Peep'?"
.....just wait a while.
Chuck Melville
> Chuck Melville wrote:
> > My only surprise concerning this post is that it took you so long to
react.
>
> Sorry, I don't read this newsgroup very often. (I'm starting to
> remember why I stopped reading it to begin with.)
>
> > A lie of omission is still a lie. And as you frequently and
> > conveniently skirt around the issues by acting as though they don't
exist
> > or have never occured, then you are committing a lie of omission.
>
> Ah, it's that tired old "Rose Colored Glasses" argument again.
>
comments you make throughout this one post.
> Let me hazard a guess and say this is supposed to be some sort of weird
> Catch-22 debating technique you're using here: If I say furry fandom is
> about sex, I'm a raving spoogemonkey. If I say furry fandom is about
> anthropomorphics, I'm a liar. If I write up factual reports about what
> a fantastic time I have at furry conventions, I'm obviously wearing rose
> colored glasses and ignoring problems (because it's a well known fact
> that nobody ever has -any- fun at furry conventions). Have I left
> anything out?
Tons o' stuff. Like the fact that your reports and comments are carefully
selected to gloss over the incidents at conventions; while true that -you-
may not have seen them, you phrase your reports in a way to make it sound
as though they never occurred at all, and that the only reason they ever
did was because other people were busy looking for them. (Thereby placing
the blame on the witnesses.) You pick your words and phrases carefully
enough so that you don't exactly give falsehoods, but neither do you tell
the entire truth.
The same with your repeated declarations that "Furry is about
Anthropomorphics". It's not that the claim is false, but it usually has
nothing specific to do with whatever argument you throw it into, except to
attempt to short-circuit the discussion. It's used as a diversion, as a
catch-all jingo, meant to diffuse; it's implication is usually that none of
the sordid stuff happens, it doesn't matter, and Anything We Do And Call It
Furry Is Okay Because Furry Is About Anthropomorphics.
Your replies run in the same vein. You're unable -- most likely unwilling
-- to keep arguments within the context they begin in. You carefully
select the two or three sentences that you want to divert the argument to,
and then proceed as though -that- were the true argument all along. This
is your standard modus operandi: you divert and carefully select your words
in order to twist the context of arguments and discussions.
> Oh yes... if I do something -really- outrageous like, say, ask for
> corroborating evidence, names, places, times, or something other than
> hearsay and gossip, then I'm someone who remembers that people can (and
> have) posted wholly fictitious stuff on this newsgroup before. I'm
> someone who doesn't necessarily believe everything he reads. I'm not as
> gullible or easily-led as you'd like me to be. I mean, if -I- start
> asking questions, the next thing you know -everyone- will.
So, in other words, all of those posts made about Confurence 8 over a year
ago (to use an example) by several people about conditions or events were
outright lies, in spite of the fact that several -did- dovetail or
corroborate one another? Ed Kline's letter was a hoax? The incident of
theft at one of the dealer's tables after hours was a fabrication?
I can agree that a number of such posts do need to be taken with a grain
of salt when first posted -- conclusions can be jumped to, and honest
errors can be made -- but you're essentially saying that anybody who makes
such claims at all is a liar until you can personally place your fingers on
the wounds.
> > Was someone just speaking a moment ago about "lame debating
tactics"?
>
> Yes. Yours, if I recall.
>
> > dance around this distinction everytime the topic comes up. Furry
fandom
> > is ostensibly about anthropomorphics. But the discussion has always
been
> > about the -perception- of what the fandom is about, and the excesses
that
> > cause that impression. But, as I say, everytime we slide into that
> > discussion, you immediately jump up and holler 'furry fandom is about
> > anthropomorphics',
>
> (O, the HORROR! Someone's saying furry fandom is about
> ANTHROPOMORPHICS! We're all DOOMED!)
Stay in context and don't slip off on a tangent.
> > thereby sidestepping the real argument. It's a
> > smokescreen and a diversion.
>
> No, it's the truth.
The statement itself is; but it has nothing to do with the context It's a
smokescreen to avoid the topic.
If I say "The sky is overcast and it looks like rain," and you say "The
sky has big poofy clouds in it," the only thing we've agreed on is that
there are clouds in the sky; but we're not talking about the same subject
-- I'm pointing out that it's going to rain, and you're pointing out poofy
clouds.
> > I don't think furry fandom is about sex.
>
> Neither do I, which makes me wonder why you're arguing with me in the
> first place. Oh, wait... it's because I don't think furry fandom is
> about sex, right? But wait, I thought you said that was a LIE:
>
> "In order to point out the lie in your repeated claims that it
> -isn't- about sex." --Chuck Melville, earlier this week
>
> Wait a minute, I'm CONFUSED... so if I'M a liar for claiming furry
> fandom isn't about sex, does that mean YOU'RE a liar TOO?
Furry fandom is not about sex. On that point we are agreed. But the
public perception is that it -is-. And you cannot say there is no basis
for that perception when you consider the high visibility of sexual imagery
and excess. A quick tour through Yiffco, a flip through Mailbox Books
Catalog, a quick run through FurryMuck, a glance through the newsgroup
listings (alt.sex.bondage.furtoonia... yeah, that sounds innocent...)...
all have more than enough raw material in and of themselves to foster that
belief. The appearance of bizarre elements at the cons -- the bondage,
overt activities with the intention of unnerving the non-furry guests, the
pet auctions, etc -- serve to further and cement the image. (Yes, I know
it hasn't been as bad or as prominent in recent cons... but even a little
bit of it makes a lasting impression.) And I wonder how many furries have
come into the fold in recent years -specifically- for the weird sex?
That's a factor we'll probably never know the entire truth on, since I
doubt few will raise their hands and admit outright to it.
Given all that, you cannot say with complete impunity that Furry is -not-
about sex. As far as the general public can tell when they see us, that
-is- what it's all about... and there's little to encourage them otherwise.
> Our story so far:
>
> * Xydexx says he thinks furry fandom isn't about sex.
> * Chuck Melville says he doesn't think furry fandom is about sex.
>
> Heh. This newsgroup can be such a fucking comedy routine sometimes.
Small wonder when you prefer to make a joke of it. You've stripped away
the entire argument and found the two phrases you personally like best to
make it sound as though we are in total agreement. And we are not. We
agree only on that one point; but that is not where the argument is.
Again: a lie of omission.
> > I think that it has excesses and those excesses have created
> > the perception that it is about sex. I also think that the rise of
furry
> > lifestylism and its sharing the furry label also adds to that
perception.
>
> I think it's ironic that I'm getting called a liar (by you, of all
> people) for saying furry fandom is about anthropomorphics. I guess the
> old saying is true that you can't please everyone.
You're twisting words. I've never said that the phrase "Furry Fandom is
about Anthropomoprhics" was a lie; go back and reread the post again.
> > More smoke and sidestepping. You don't make a distinction
between reading
> > funny-animal comics and boinking inflatable horses is what you mean.
>
> Don't tell me what I mean, Chuck. That's an even lamer debate tactic
> than your previous one. Besides, I'm in a better position to know what
> I mean than you are, and you seem to be having enough trouble figuring
> out what you mean yourself.
>
> But I'll humor you anyway. It's fun:
>
> You mean the distinction I make between furry fans and inflatable
> fetishists, right? That's strike one.
>
> > You
> > don't make a distinction between writing anthropomorphic fiction and
> > exploring one's inner furry self.
>
> You mean the distinction I make between furry fans and furry
> lifestylers, right? That's strike two.
>
> > You don't make a distinction between
> > being a cartoon addict and a zoophile.
>
> You mean the distinction I make between furry fans and zoophiles,
> right? Whaddya know, that's strike three. (Oh, there is no joy in
> Melville, mighty Chuckie has struck out!)
>
> From my side of the fence, it looks like -you're- the one having trouble
> making the distinctions here.
Apart from your denial here, I've never seen you give any indication that
you have made any distinction between any of the aforementioned. In the
past, whenever there's been a lengthy and heated debate on any of these
topics, your primary reaction has always been to jump in with: "We're all
furries"; "Furry is about anthropomorphics"; "We're just setting furry fan
against furry fan" -- all of which just indicates that you accept the
broader definition of Furry and accept those variations that have nothing
to do with furry as being -part- of furry. In short, you make no
distinctions.
> > I would much prefer someone with less suspect credentials. If
PEEP (a
> > show I know nothing of) is contacting -you- as a result of the BIZARRE
> > article, then already -their- motivations are suspect; it's a
zeroing-in on
> > the excesses and bizarre practices again, and I wouldn't trust them
-or-
> > you not to further the damage.
>
> Ah, but you told me saying furry fandom was about anthropomorphics was a
> LIE. A lie of omission is still a lie, right? Hey, just think, I
> -might- actually get flamed for something I actually said for once. I
> can't wait!
You're twisting words again. I've already said that line was true, but
that you're using it as a smokescreen to avoid the context.
Dr. Cat
> Is not!
Some other bunch of furries said:
> Is too!
Hmmm. Somebody wake me up if this flamewar covers any new ideas that
weren't covered in the last ten flamewars on this topic, okie?
I'm going to be a sensible cat and catch up on some important catnapping.
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Would you like your furry fandom with, or without toast?)
Custer J. Winston
ICQ # 102185 | Custer37 on AOL-IM
http://members.theglobe.com/custer37/
Peter da Silva
Ron Orr...& Tirran <griz...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
>
>> Ack. MORE WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT!
>>
>> I read that as "Microsoft Foreplay".
>>
>> "Where do you want to go today?"
>>
>> "Third Base!"
>>
>> (cue Abbot and Costello)
>
> After waiting an hour or so to let my sides heal... that is
>_the_ funniest thing I've seen on Usenet in months...
Glad to be of service.
Wanderer
public (as distinguished from a member of the fandom, just to be clear on
that point):
1.) This argument should be taken to e-mail, as you two are the only ones
carrying it on ... and, correct me if I'm wrong, but a two-person flamewar
is *not* of general interest to the fandom.
2.) Chuck, you've been calling Xydexx names in such a juvenile way, I'd
like to ask your mother to give you a time out. I'd *like* to. But since I
can't very well do that, I'll just point out that you're becoming personally
abusive toward him, accusing him of shoddy debate tactics, and generally
being a pain in the furry tail.
3.) That said ... Xydexx, while some parts of your post are rather sensible
in terms of debate, you *do* tend to make it personal much too soon ... try
distancing yourself from the argument. Other than that, you're acting just
as bad as he is by goading him into making textual errors which allow you to
goad him still further. Either take a time out or deflate yourself for a
while, *please*!
Yours with an angry glower,
The flame-intolerant,
Wanderer**wand...@applink.net
Where am I going?I don't quite know.
What does it matter where people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow.
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I*don't know!
Chuck Melville
<6q2m3t$9us$1...@news.onramp.net>...
> If you two furry flamers can stand some input from a former member of the
> public (as distinguished from a member of the fandom, just to be clear on
> that point):
>
> 1.) This argument should be taken to e-mail, as you two are the only
ones
> carrying it on ... and, correct me if I'm wrong, but a two-person
flamewar
> is *not* of general interest to the fandom.
A flamewar is not; but the topic and the discussion have been. I prefer
to keep it public, and won't accept e-mail from Xxydex about it. The
flamewar, if such it could be termed, is his challenge anyway; all I
originally said at the onset was that I preferred to be called a
funny-animal cartoonist.
> 2.) Chuck, you've been calling Xydexx names in such a juvenile way, I'd
> like to ask your mother to give you a time out. I'd *like* to. But
since I
> can't very well do that, I'll just point out that you're becoming
personally
> abusive toward him, accusing him of shoddy debate tactics, and generally
> being a pain in the furry tail.
As of yet, I've called him no names at all. I've said he's guilty of lies
of omission, but I haven't said anything stronger than that. Certainly no
names.
I've kept my part of the exchange as -impersonal- as I can attempt; but I
contend that he is indeed guilty of shoddy tactics, and I think the latter
goes without saying. Well... okay; maybe that last -is- getting personal.
But the rest holds.
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
> Xydexx wrote:
> > Ah, it's that tired old "Rose Colored Glasses" argument again.
> >
> Old, perhaps, but obviously still quite valid. Especially given the
> comments you make throughout this one post.
Using the short form this time:
You claim that I ignore problems.
I've said more than once I don't deny these problems exist.
Ergo, I'm not ignoring problems; your argument is invalid.
Try not to milk this dead cow anymore, okay?
Next...
> Tons o' stuff. Like the fact that your reports and comments are carefully
> selected to gloss over the incidents at conventions; while true that -you-
> may not have seen them, you phrase your reports in a way to make it sound
> as though they never occurred at all, and that the only reason they ever
> did was because other people were busy looking for them.
I tell the truth about what I saw at the convention. I don't write con
reports to report on things I didn't see.
> The same with your repeated declarations that "Furry is about
> Anthropomorphics". It's not that the claim is false, but it usually has
> nothing specific to do with whatever argument you throw it into, except to
> attempt to short-circuit the discussion.
That is your opinion. You are entitled to it.
> Your replies run in the same vein. You're unable -- most likely unwilling
> -- to keep arguments within the context they begin in. You carefully
> select the two or three sentences that you want to divert the argument to,
> and then proceed as though -that- were the true argument all along. This
> is your standard modus operandi: you divert and carefully select your words
> in order to twist the context of arguments and discussions.
Clearly I'm not selecting my words nearly as carefully as I should, given that
you continue to build straw men and argue with me about beliefs I do not hold
and things I did not say.
> So, in other words, all of those posts made about Confurence 8 over a year
> ago (to use an example) by several people about conditions or events were
> outright lies, in spite of the fact that several -did- dovetail or
> corroborate one another?
Like I said before, I don't deny these things happened. That doesn't change
the fact that I didn't see them, and regardless of the horror stories that
crop up on this newsgroup I had a great time at CF8.
> Furry fandom is not about sex. On that point we are agreed. But the
> public perception is that it -is-. And you cannot say there is no basis
> for that perception when you consider the high visibility of sexual imagery
> and excess.
[examples snipped for brevity]
> Given all that, you cannot say with complete impunity that Furry is -not-
> about sex. As far as the general public can tell when they see us, that
> -is- what it's all about... and there's little to encourage them otherwise.
Chuck, I'm not saying there isn't an abundance of sexually explicit furry
stuff out there. I'm not even denying there's an -overabundance- of sexually
explicit furry stuff out there.
You say the general public thinks furry fandom is about sex.
I'm not saying they -don't- think furry fandom is about sex.
I'm saying they are wrong. I'm saying furry fandom -isn't- about sex.
(Here, supposedly, we agree...)
It's about anthropomorphics.
(Here, supposedly, we also agree...)
Anything those anthropomorphics are doing beyond that is incidental.
> > Our story so far:
> >
> > * Xydexx says he thinks furry fandom isn't about sex.
> > * Chuck Melville says he doesn't think furry fandom is about sex.
> >
> > Heh. This newsgroup can be such a fucking comedy routine sometimes.
>
> Small wonder when you prefer to make a joke of it. You've stripped away
> the entire argument and found the two phrases you personally like best to
> make it sound as though we are in total agreement. And we are not. We
> agree only on that one point; but that is not where the argument is.
It's hard not to make a joke out of it. One minute you're saying furry
fandom isn't about sex, the next minute you're saying it is. Which is it,
Chuck? I'm well aware we're not in total agreement. But if you think furry
fandom isn't about sex, don't you think you should start acting like it
isn't?
> Apart from your denial here, I've never seen you give any indication that
> you have made any distinction between any of the aforementioned.
I can probably check DejaNews when I get home and track that down for you. I
think the problem there may be you're just too eager for me to play the part
of the Evil Spoogemonkey and that you haven't been paying attention. But
that's just my guess.
> In the
> past, whenever there's been a lengthy and heated debate on any of these
> topics, your primary reaction has always been to jump in with:
> "We're all furries";
Or all crazy for continuing to read this newsgroup.
> "Furry is about anthropomorphics";
This, you concede, is true.
> "We're just setting furry fan against furry fan"
This is especially true.
> In short, you make no distinctions.
As I said in my earlier response, it looks to me as though you're the one
having trouble making the distinctions here. After all, I'm in a better
position to know what distinctions I make than you are.
--Xydexx
K. Xydexx Jorgensen
> As of yet, I've called him no names at all. I've said he's guilty of lies
> of omission, but I haven't said anything stronger than that. Certainly no
> names.
In other words, you're calling me a liar.
You might contend that saying I'm guilty of lies of omission and calling
me a liar are two different things, but I assure you the difference is
merely one of semantics.
_______________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
"Remember back when 'gay' meant 'happy'? It still does."
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
> 3.) That said ... Xydexx, while some parts of your post are rather sensible
> in terms of debate, you *do* tend to make it personal much too soon ... try
> distancing yourself from the argument. Other than that, you're acting just
> as bad as he is by goading him into making textual errors which allow you to
> goad him still further. Either take a time out or deflate yourself for a
> while, *please*!
Okayiloveyoubyebye.
> Yours with an angry glower,
Mine? COOL! My very own Wanderer!
I will hug him
and squeeze him
and name him George. -:)
That strange, tea-drinking squeakypony,
Ethel Merman
Wanderer
>Wanderer wrote:
(snip)
>> Yours with an angry glower,
>
>Mine? COOL! My very own Wanderer!
> I will hug him
> and squeeze him
> and name him George. -:)
>
Yours anyway,
The smiling,
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
> Apart from your denial here, I've never seen you give any indication that
> you have made any distinction between any of the aforementioned.
Cut & Paste Justice was filmed in front of a live audience:
"Of course, there's one little problem with your reasoning here. I'm not
the one saying furry fandom is about being a zoophile, or about boinking
inflatable animal toys, or about anything other than anthropomorphics."
--- Xydexx Squeakypony, May 31 1998
There are several other quotes from me that dovetail and corroborate this
statement as well, which basically means the charge of me not making
distinctions is now another dead cow you can't milk.
---Xydexx the Teflon-Coated Squeakypony
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
> Squeaky Pony writes:
> > Chuck Melville wrote:
> > > I happen to think there -is- some progress being made here.
> >
> > I would, if I wasn't able to search DejaNews and cut and paste replies
> > I made two years ago to save me the trouble of repeating myself when
> > these same tired old flamewars come back again.
>
Useful, yes. New, no. But neither is the stuff I'm replying to.
> I don't think anyone would ever accuse you of that, oh proud builder of the
> inflatable clydesdale. After all, you were cited in the Bizarre atricle all
> about weird sexual fetishes. You've got to be strange for a mag like that to
> call you weird. :-)
Indeed, I have the dubious honor of being weirder than Bizarre. -:) Makes me
wonder what I'll do for an encore?
(Well, there's always the interview with Peek, right? Heh heh heh... yes...
that -will- be interesting. I personally guarantee it.)
> (I was trying to stay out of the usual flame war. But I couldn't resist the
> urge to try to rub the squeaky one the wrong way. Does it go "keeuqs"?)
No, no... "squeak" said backwards is still "squeak".
Chuck Melville
xyd...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<6q4rr6$gtj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> Using the short form this time:
> You claim that I ignore problems.
> I've said more than once I don't deny these problems exist.
> Ergo, I'm not ignoring problems; your argument is invalid.
Hardly.
Saying you don't deny they exist is one thing; but your actions and posts
in general and in specifics are inconsistent with your denial.
> > Tons o' stuff. Like the fact that your reports and comments are
carefully
> > selected to gloss over the incidents at conventions; while true that
-you-
> > may not have seen them, you phrase your reports in a way to make it
sound
> > as though they never occurred at all, and that the only reason they
ever
> > did was because other people were busy looking for them.
>
> I tell the truth about what I saw at the convention. I don't write con
> reports to report on things I didn't see.
>
But at the same time you've belittled the reports of those who -had-
witnessed them, and then implied that they only saw them because they were
looking for them.
What I meant by -your- reports, though, is that they come across as being
written less for the chance to report on the fun stuff you did at the con,
and more as a quick denial that anything else -could- have happened. It's
the timing and the manner in which they were posted. "On the other hand,
-I- had a delightfully wonderful marmalade in the restaurant" (this is a
very broad paraphrasing, but is indicative of the nature of your posts) as
a follow-up to reports of less-than-satisfactory occurences, implies the
matter was neither serious nor warranting of -any- actions, and is mocking
of the person or persons making the complaints.
Those posts, and the manner in which you made them (in quick and immediate
replies to initial posts by others, as though attemtping to divert the flow
of topic before it set in) lead me to three possible conclusions: you spent
the entire convention with your head in a sack; you really were lucky
enough not to witness -any- of the problems reported on by other con-goers
(which seems odd, but not entirely impossible; -I- didn't go looking for
problems at the con, either, but nevertheless -did- witness a few of the
things other folks had reported on); or you have your own reasons for
attempting to divert folks from discussing the negative aspects of the
convention.
> > The same with your repeated declarations that "Furry is about
> > Anthropomorphics". It's not that the claim is false, but it usually
has
> > nothing specific to do with whatever argument you throw it into, except
to
> > attempt to short-circuit the discussion.
>
> That is your opinion. You are entitled to it.
That is my obversation; I will stand by it.
> > Your replies run in the same vein. You're unable -- most likely
unwilling
> > -- to keep arguments within the context they begin in. You carefully
> > select the two or three sentences that you want to divert the argument
to,
> > and then proceed as though -that- were the true argument all along.
This
> > is your standard modus operandi: you divert and carefully select your
words
> > in order to twist the context of arguments and discussions.
>
> Clearly I'm not selecting my words nearly as carefully as I should, given
that
> you continue to build straw men and argue with me about beliefs I do not
hold
> and things I did not say.
Uh-huh. (I can always tell when I get close to home; the 'straw man'
argument makes its appearance.)
> > So, in other words, all of those posts made about Confurence 8 over a
year
> > ago (to use an example) by several people about conditions or events
were
> > outright lies, in spite of the fact that several -did- dovetail or
> > corroborate one another?
>
> Like I said before, I don't deny these things happened. That doesn't
change
> the fact that I didn't see them, and regardless of the horror stories
that
> crop up on this newsgroup I had a great time at CF8.
But you -just- got through saying that the reports made by furries here
couldn't be trusted.
> > Furry fandom is not about sex. On that point we are agreed. But the
> > public perception is that it -is-. And you cannot say there is no
basis
> > for that perception when you consider the high visibility of sexual
imagery
> > and excess.
> [examples snipped for brevity]
> > Given all that, you cannot say with complete impunity that Furry is
-not-
> > about sex. As far as the general public can tell when they see us,
that
> > -is- what it's all about... and there's little to encourage them
otherwise.
>
> Chuck, I'm not saying there isn't an abundance of sexually explicit furry
> stuff out there. I'm not even denying there's an -overabundance- of
sexually
> explicit furry stuff out there.
>
> You say the general public thinks furry fandom is about sex.
> I'm not saying they -don't- think furry fandom is about sex.
> I'm saying they are wrong. I'm saying furry fandom -isn't- about sex.
> (Here, supposedly, we agree...)
And there is where we appear to part terms. They may be wrong, but it is
still a problem. You're not concerned about it. I am.
> It's about anthropomorphics.
> (Here, supposedly, we also agree...)
>
> Anything those anthropomorphics are doing beyond that is incidental.
Now -there- is a point we do -not- agree on. And maybe this is where
there is a fundamental weakness with furry fandom... or with the whole
Furry label. Because I happen to believe that what the anthropomorphics
does beyond that point is -integral- to Furry Fandom, -not- incidental.
I'll get back to this thought in a different post.
> > > * Xydexx says he thinks furry fandom isn't about sex.
> > > * Chuck Melville says he doesn't think furry fandom is about sex.
> > >
> > > Heh. This newsgroup can be such a fucking comedy routine sometimes.
> >
> > Small wonder when you prefer to make a joke of it. You've stripped
away
> > the entire argument and found the two phrases you personally like best
to
> > make it sound as though we are in total agreement. And we are not. We
> > agree only on that one point; but that is not where the argument is.
>
> It's hard not to make a joke out of it. One minute you're saying furry
> fandom isn't about sex, the next minute you're saying it is. Which is
it,
> Chuck? I'm well aware we're not in total agreement. But if you think
furry
> fandom isn't about sex, don't you think you should start acting like it
> isn't?
And more smoke. I think there's a problem with the public perception that
furry fandom is about sex, therefore -I- must be acting as though the
fandom is all about sex. The peculiar twists of your logic continues to
defy rationality.
> > In the
> > past, whenever there's been a lengthy and heated debate on any of these
> > topics, your primary reaction has always been to jump in with:
> > "We're all furries";
>
> Or all crazy for continuing to read this newsgroup.
>
> > "Furry is about anthropomorphics";
>
> This, you concede, is true.
Conditionally. Furry Fandom is about anthropomorphics; Furry is about
lifestyles, as in ALF.
> > "We're just setting furry fan against furry fan"
>
> This is especially true.
Not so. If we're taking a stance against lifestylers, then it's not fan
vs fan, per se (They don't even consider themselves fans, and only a few
have any interest in furry fandom at all -- and I'm -not- speaking of those
few in this exclusionary). If we're taking a stance against those whose
-only- interest is in the bizarre aspects, then no loss.
> > In short, you make no distinctions.
>
> As I said in my earlier response, it looks to me as though you're the one
> having trouble making the distinctions here.
Just a moment -- you've dropped a line here:
>>all of which just indicates that you accept the
>>broader definition of Furry and accept those variations that have nothing
>>to do with furry as being -part- of furry. In short, you make no
distinctions.
Just so folks don't lose the context of those lines you just quoted. As
I'd said earlier, it's not that the lines of themselves are necessarily
untrue, but you throw them out into discussions as non-sequitars, having
little to do with the context, but with the intention of derailing any
discussion.
>After all, I'm in a better
> position to know what distinctions I make than you are.
I don't doubt that. But I can only infer from your actions and comments,
and that is what I'm left to react to.
> > As of yet, I've called him no names at all. I've said he's
guilty of lies
> > of omission, but I haven't said anything stronger than that. Certainly
no
> > names.
>
> In other words, you're calling me a liar.
>
> You might contend that saying I'm guilty of lies of omission and calling
> me a liar are two different things, but I assure you the difference is
> merely one of semantics.
And when it comes to semantics, I guess you'd know. But, yes, my implying
it -is- different than actually saying it. I've called you no names as
yet; I've shied away from actually calling you a liar because thus far
you've told the -technical- truth, if not the full truth.
> > Apart from your denial here, I've never seen you give any indication
that
> > you have made any distinction between any of the aforementioned.
>
> Cut & Paste Justice was filmed in front of a live audience:
> "Of course, there's one little problem with your reasoning here. I'm not
> the one saying furry fandom is about being a zoophile, or about boinking
> inflatable animal toys, or about anything other than anthropomorphics."
> --- Xydexx Squeakypony, May 31 1998
>
Cut and paste indeed. I see less of an attempt at making distinctions
than I see you claiming somebody else is making claims.
I'll make it easier for you, in order to cut through years of Deja News
and thousands of posts; state it here, now. "Bestiality/Zoophilia is not
Furry"; "Boinking plushies and inflatable animals is not Furry"; "Animal
fetishism in general is not Furry".
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
[yada yada yada..]
> Those posts, and the manner in which you made them (in quick and
immediate
> replies to initial posts by others, as though attemtping to divert the flow
> of topic before it set in) lead me to three possible conclusions: you spent
> the entire convention with your head in a sack; you really were lucky
> enough not to witness -any- of the problems reported on by other con-goers
> (which seems odd, but not entirely impossible; -I- didn't go looking for
> problems at the con, either, but nevertheless -did- witness a few of the
> things other folks had reported on); or you have your own reasons for
> attempting to divert folks from discussing the negative aspects of the
> convention.
You can say the fact that I didn't witness any of the problems reported by
other con-goers is just some lucky coincidence. Again, that's your biased
opinion and you're entitled to it, I can just as easily say the fact that you
did witness said problems is an even luckier coincidence. Why? Not because I
was wandering around with rose-colored glasses... but rather because the
actions of less than 1% of 1,200 attendees is easy to miss.
Again: I don't deny they didn't happen. I just didn't see any of it. You
concede that isn't entirely impossible. I'd say statistically, it's highly
probable.
There you have it. You've exposed my great cover-up. Run along now, Chuck,
or you'll miss your meeting with the Cigarette Smoking Man...
> Uh-huh. (I can always tell when I get close to home; the 'straw man'
> argument makes its appearance.)
A straw man is a straw man is a straw man. That is -my- observation. I will
stand by it. -:P
[yada yada yada...]
> > You say the general public thinks furry fandom is about sex.
> > I'm not saying they -don't- think furry fandom is about sex.
> > I'm saying they are wrong. I'm saying furry fandom -isn't- about sex.
> > (Here, supposedly, we agree...)
>
> And there is where we appear to part terms. They may be wrong, but it
> is still a problem. You're not concerned about it. I am.
Correction: I'm _no_longer_ concerned about it.
Why? Because it's been two years on the newsgroup of bitching and moaning
about how the media hates furry, how animators hate furry, how everyone's out
to get us. And after two years, the only conclusion I seem to able to reach
is this:
IT'S BULLSHIT. A MAGNIFICENT CROCK OF BULLSHIT.
Even if it isn't, it's _still_ bullshit. Why? Because I don't care,
frankly. The only reason I can think of that I can cut & paste replies from
flamewars two years ago is that you don't really want solutions, you just
want to complain. If furry fandom got some good press, then you wouldn't be
able to rally against all the Evil Spoogemonkeys that are (gasp) destroying
the fandom, yada yada yada....
Here's a quarter, Go call someone who cares.
[krang chop chop chop...]
> > Cut & Paste Justice was filmed in front of a live audience:
> > "Of course, there's one little problem with your reasoning here. I'm not
> > the one saying furry fandom is about being a zoophile, or about boinking
> > inflatable animal toys, or about anything other than anthropomorphics."
> > --- Xydexx Squeakypony, May 31 1998
> >
>
> Cut and paste indeed. I see less of an attempt at making distinctions
> than I see you claiming somebody else is making claims.
> I'll make it easier for you, in order to cut through years of Deja News
> and thousands of posts; state it here, now. "Bestiality/Zoophilia is not
> Furry"; "Boinking plushies and inflatable animals is not Furry"; "Animal
> fetishism in general is not Furry".
Now why would I want to do a silly thing like that when I'm No Longer
Obligated and being wooed for an interview with Peek? I mean, really... if
you think one or two sentences in a Wired article about LamdaMOO is the
downfall of furry fandom, I can just imagine what you'll be thinking a month
from now...
Chuck Melville
<6qj3mi$tbi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> You can say the fact that I didn't witness any of the problems reported
by
> other con-goers is just some lucky coincidence. Again, that's your
biased
> opinion and you're entitled to it, I can just as easily say the fact
that you
> did witness said problems is an even luckier coincidence. Why? Not
because I
> was wandering around with rose-colored glasses... but rather because the
> actions of less than 1% of 1,200 attendees is easy to miss.
Like they say in real estate: it's location, location, location. It
doesn't matter if it was 1% or even .001% -- it was -where- it was
happening, which was around the more public locales, where it was -not- so
easy to miss. That was where the majority of the posts regarding the
incidents had placed them, and that was where I'd seen the few things I'd
witnessed.
> > > You say the general public thinks furry fandom is about sex.
> > > I'm not saying they -don't- think furry fandom is about sex.
> > > I'm saying they are wrong. I'm saying furry fandom -isn't- about
sex.
> > > (Here, supposedly, we agree...)
> >
> > And there is where we appear to part terms. They may be wrong, but it
> > is still a problem. You're not concerned about it. I am.
>
> Correction: I'm _no_longer_ concerned about it.
>
> Why? Because it's been two years on the newsgroup of bitching and
moaning
> about how the media hates furry, how animators hate furry, how everyone's
out
> to get us. And after two years, the only conclusion I seem to able to
reach
> is this:
>
> IT'S BULLSHIT. A MAGNIFICENT CROCK OF BULLSHIT.
>
> Even if it isn't, it's _still_ bullshit. Why? Because I don't care,
> frankly. The only reason I can think of that I can cut & paste replies
from
> flamewars two years ago is that you don't really want solutions, you just
> want to complain. If furry fandom got some good press...
...then I'd be astonished, completely flabbergasted, and positively
grateful. I don't expect it, given the track record thus far, but hope
-does- spring eternal.
But I appreciate the candor, and your clarification on your position; I
really do think that says it all.
No, I -don't- want to complain; I've better things to do. But neither do
I want things to have to complain -about-. And one of the methods of
finding solutions is to bring the matters into open discussion, and keeping
an awareness of the problems alive in people's minds.
Perhaps, in order to keep a flame war from erupting time and again over
this topic, someone might be interested in keeping a FAQ available on this
group, concerning the 'Perceptions of Furry by the Public At Large'?
> > > Cut & Paste Justice was filmed in front of a live audience:
> > > "Of course, there's one little problem with your reasoning here. I'm
not
> > > the one saying furry fandom is about being a zoophile, or about
boinking
> > > inflatable animal toys, or about anything other than
anthropomorphics."
> > > --- Xydexx Squeakypony, May 31 1998
> > >
> >
> > Cut and paste indeed. I see less of an attempt at making distinctions
> > than I see you claiming somebody else is making claims.
> > I'll make it easier for you, in order to cut through years of Deja
News
> > and thousands of posts; state it here, now. "Bestiality/Zoophilia is
not
> > Furry"; "Boinking plushies and inflatable animals is not Furry";
"Animal
> > fetishism in general is not Furry".
>
> Now why would I want to do a silly thing like that when I'm No Longer
> Obligated and being wooed for an interview with Peek? I mean, really...
if
> you think one or two sentences in a Wired article about LamdaMOO is the
> downfall of furry fandom, I can just imagine what you'll be thinking a
month
> from now...
In short, you can't and you won't, and have found another convenient
dodge. Fine. I think that says it clearly enough. End of discussion.
--
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
> Xydexx wrote:
>
> Like they say in real estate: it's location, location, location. It
> doesn't matter if it was 1% or even .001% -- it was -where- it was
> happening, which was around the more public locales, where it was -not- so
> easy to miss. That was where the majority of the posts regarding the
> incidents had placed them, and that was where I'd seen the few things I'd
> witnessed.
And I didn't. I guess it's just a matter of being in the right place at the
right time. Everyone can't be everywhere at once... and it isn't hard for me
to imagine someone not witnessing something that less than 1% of the
attendees did for a few minutes in a 72-hour period.
[yada yada yada...]
> State it here, now. "Bestiality/Zoophilia is not
> Furry"; "Boinking plushies and inflatable animals is not Furry";
> "Animal fetishism in general is not Furry".
>
> > Now why would I want to do a silly thing like that when I'm No Longer
> > Obligated and being wooed for an interview with Peek?
>
> In short, you can't and you won't,
Wrong again. I can. I have. Numerous times.
The problem is that whenever I say it, you ignore it. It runs contrary to the
Evil Spoogemonkey character you're so eager to portray me as.
Why bother repeating myself?
(Because some people don't listen the first time, obviously... and cuz
DejaNews is so much fun to hunt through... every now and then you stumble
across little gems like this one...)
On 3/26/98 Betty R. asked:
"Okay, so furry fandom is about anthropomorphics. In your
opinion, does anthropomorphics somehow also encompass the
concepts of bestiality (zoophilia) and plushie sex?"
And on 3/27/98 Xydexx the Evil Spoogemonkey replied:
"No, of course not."
Chalk up the charge that I don't make distinctions as yet -another- dead cow
Chuck Melville can't milk.
On a historical note, I made that statement just a few days before resigning
as Ambassador to Furry Fandom. In other words, I'm No Longer Obligated to
make statements like that anymore.
> End of discussion.
I agree; it's a good idea that you should quit while I'm ahead.
Rev. Xydexx "Teflon-Coated" Squeakypony, K.S.C.
No-Longer-Obligated Former Ambassador to Furry Fandom
matm...@my-dejanews.com
anything you say. And come to think of it, that puts you in the same position
you contributed to with me a year ago....
As I said then, and will say now....
"You now see what's it's like on the other side of the street"
Matthew Milam
dynam...@email.msn.com
"No Replies Please"
Allen Kitchen
matm...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<6qnbon$lpa$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> You know Karl, A better idea is to let it go. These guys aren't going to
get
> anything you say. And come to think of it, that puts you in the same
position
> you contributed to with me a year ago....
You are mistaken. I am listening to Karl, even if I don't
accept everything he says.
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
Wanderer
<a great deal of pointless arguing snipped>
1.) Believe it or not, Chuck, it *is* possible to miss even big things ...
I, fur instance, missed the entire Dallas Cowboys Victory Parade Riot. So
until and unless you can prove that Xydexx was present when one of the many
incidents vaguely referred to took place, kindly quit impugning another
furfan's honor, dignity, and integrity. It demeans both yourself and the
medium.
2.) Xydexx, yyou have made your point, and yet you ramble on ... thank you,
we're well aware of the possibly-impending interview, as well as your
opinions on furry fandom. If this argument is truly so monotonous that you
can reprint posts from months/years ago, might one suggest you stop posting
to this thread?
3.) Chuck, it is very true that open discussion is vital. But until and
unless something new comes up, either in your subject material or in your
own methods and suggestions for dealing with the problems, please do not
bother rehashing everything since CF2. It gets boring, and I hate to have
to say that anout anyfurry.
4.) Xydexx, while it is quite true that you are no loger obligated (forgive
my omission of the capitalisation there), taunting Chuck by effectively
ignoring an essentially harmless request for a few bytes' worth of
electronic text is both silly and rude. While I do not agree with Chuck's
equally offensive contention that you are incapable of saying such things
(especially since you've strongly implied them on many an occasion), a
little flexibility might be nice ... whatever happened to bendable rubber?
5.) Again I respectfully request ... if you must argue amongst yourselves,
TAKE IT OFF THE NEWSGROUP!
Yours truly,
The late-night,
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
In article <6qn94k$5kf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, xyd...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> And I didn't. I guess it's just a matter of being in the right place
> at the right time. Everyone can't be everywhere at once... and it
> isn't hard for me to imagine someone not witnessing something that
> less than 1% of the attendees did for a few minutes in a 72-hour period.
Somehow I get the impression that you might have spent 90% of your time at CF
in people's hotel rooms "Getting Yiffy" or otherwise privately engaged. Small
wonder you didn't see anything.
> Wrong again. I can. I have. Numerous times.
So it's all your fault. :-)
> The problem is that whenever I say it, you ignore it. It runs contrary
> to the Evil Spoogemonkey character you're so eager to portray me as.
>
> Why bother repeating myself?
For the Same Reason Matt Milam does. You're just more long winded.
> On a historical note, I made that statement just a few days
> before resigning as Ambassador to Furry Fandom. In other words, I'm
> No Longer Obligated to make statements like that anymore.
How can you resign from an office nobody in authority appointed you to? Sheer
self-aggrandizement here.
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
> Hmmm, I'm in the mood to tweak the pony's nose.
Why can't you just rub me on your fur and stick me to the ceiling like
everyone else does? -:P
> Somehow I get the impression that you might have spent 90% of your time at CF
> in people's hotel rooms "Getting Yiffy" or otherwise privately engaged.
Hey kids, it's Pop Quiz Time!
Our question for today is:
How many times has Xydexx the Evil Spoogemonkey gotten boinked or yiffy or
spent time "otherwise privately engaged" at a furry convention?
a) At least twice at every convention he's attended since 1993.
b) Only at Confurence, where he spends 90% of the convention locked up as
Chuck Melville's personal love slave.
c) Multiple times, but only with Rich Chandler Chandler Chandler cuz Rich
Chandler Chandler Chandler is such a studmuffin.
d) Only once.
(C'mon... this should be easy... everyone knows a sexy squeaky pony like me
has got dozens of cute yiffy boys wanting to be my playtoy for the
evening....)
> For the Same Reason Matt Milam does. You're just more long winded.
I'm inflatable. Ergo, I'm allowed to be. -:P
> How can you resign from an office nobody in authority appointed you to? Sheer
> self-aggrandizement here.
Because there was this studly guy named Richard Chandler (I've seen his
picture, he kind of looks like you) who once suggested that we should *ALL*
be Ambassadors to Furry Fandom. I figured if I was going to be expected to
behave like an Ambassador to Furry Fandom, I might as well flaunt this lofty
title that Richard Chandler made available to me.
And I did, for a while.
Now I'm back to being a hardcore High Priest Of Latex, like I had been before
Richard Chandler talked me into being Ambassador to Furry Fandom.
Rev. Xydexx Spoogemonkey, K.S.C.
(Keeper of the Sacred Clydesdale)
No-Longer-Obligated Former Ambassador to Furry Fandom
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Chuck Melville
> 1.) Believe it or not, Chuck, it *is* possible to miss even big things
..
> I, fur instance, missed the entire Dallas Cowboys Victory Parade Riot.
So
> until and unless you can prove that Xydexx was present when one of the
many
> incidents vaguely referred to took place, kindly quit impugning another
> furfan's honor, dignity, and integrity. It demeans both yourself and the
> medium.
We're talking about some rather obvious behavior in a rather small
location; I still think it odd he saw nothing. However, I have -already-
admitted from the outset that it wasn't impossible.
> 3.) Chuck, it is very true that open discussion is vital. But until and
> unless something new comes up, either in your subject material or in your
> own methods and suggestions for dealing with the problems, please do not
> bother rehashing everything since CF2. It gets boring, and I hate to
have
> to say that anout anyfurry.
The examples regarding CF9 were just that: examples. Xxydex's method of
argumentation (omissions, lack of context, misleading comments, etc.),
which was at issue, is ongoing. To be quite frank, Wanderer, and with all
due respect, if you find this exchange boring, why are you reading it? You
-don't- have to read a post simply because it's posted on the group; if
you're having difficulty with following this exchange, I apologize, but
suggest you skip this thread altogether and save yourself the stress.
> 5.) Again I respectfully request ... if you must argue amongst
yourselves,
> TAKE IT OFF THE NEWSGROUP!
I've already said that I won't be discussing this with Xxydex in e-mail.
I prefer it to -not- be an argument at all, frankly, but it is, certainly,
going to continue to remain an issue of strong disagreement.
--
Chuck Melville
<6qn94k$5kf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> Chuck Melville wrote:
> > Xydexx wrote:
> >
> > Like they say in real estate: it's location, location, location. It
> > doesn't matter if it was 1% or even .001% -- it was -where- it was
> > happening, which was around the more public locales, where it was -not-
so
> > easy to miss. That was where the majority of the posts regarding the
> > incidents had placed them, and that was where I'd seen the few things
I'd
> > witnessed.
>
the
> right time. Everyone can't be everywhere at once... and it isn't hard
for me
> to imagine someone not witnessing something that less than 1% of the
> attendees did for a few minutes in a 72-hour period.
Or apparently to even be aware of it until, evidently, hearing about it
here; most folks knew of at least one or more of the reported events during
the con itself. Still, improbable as it is, it's not impossible that you
were completely ignorant.
> > State it here, now. "Bestiality/Zoophilia is not
> > Furry"; "Boinking plushies and inflatable animals is not Furry";
> > "Animal fetishism in general is not Furry".
> >
> > > Now why would I want to do a silly thing like that when I'm No Longer
> > > Obligated and being wooed for an interview with Peek?
> >
> > In short, you can't and you won't,
>
> Wrong again. I can. I have. Numerous times.
>
> The problem is that whenever I say it, you ignore it.
Probably because I've never heard you say it.
> On 3/26/98 Betty R. asked:
> "Okay, so furry fandom is about anthropomorphics. In your
> opinion, does anthropomorphics somehow also encompass the
> concepts of bestiality (zoophilia) and plushie sex?"
>
> And on 3/27/98 Xydexx the Evil Spoogemonkey replied:
> "No, of course not."
I notice you still avoid saying it directly and resort instead to quoting
an old post. Well, we'll let that go. (And it's new to me; I never saw or
read that post before, so it's a fresh revelation.) I'll accept that your
word is on record; you'll pardon me if I continue to doubt your sincerity.
> > End of discussion.
>
> I agree; it's a good idea that you should quit while I'm ahead.
>
Oh, I didn't realize you were bothering to keep score; explains your need
to have the last word. Well, life is just a game to some, I suppose.
--
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> c) Multiple times, but only with Rich Chandler Chandler Chandler
> cuz Rich Chandler Chandler Chandler is such a studmuffin.
You know, this was barely funny the first time, but if you're expect it has
some kind of annoyance factor for me, you're wrong. I merely find it sad.
> Now I'm back to being a hardcore High Priest Of Latex,
Oh, like THIS is exactly what the fandom needs....
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
[snippage]
> > > State it here, now. "Bestiality/Zoophilia is not
> > > Furry"; "Boinking plushies and inflatable animals is not Furry";
> > > "Animal fetishism in general is not Furry".
> > >
> > > > Obligated and being wooed for an interview with Peek?
> > >
> > > In short, you can't and you won't,
> >
> > Wrong again. I can. I have. Numerous times.
> >
> > The problem is that whenever I say it, you ignore it.
>
> Probably because I've never heard you say it.
Yeah, you never heard me say anything about boycotting Mu Press, either.
Clearly, you need to do your homework before making inaccurate assumptions
about my viewpoints. A failure to listen on your part does not establish a
lack of communication on my part.
> > On 3/26/98 Betty R. asked:
> > "Okay, so furry fandom is about anthropomorphics. In your
> > opinion, does anthropomorphics somehow also encompass the
> > concepts of bestiality (zoophilia) and plushie sex?"
> >
> > And on 3/27/98 Xydexx the Evil Spoogemonkey replied:
> > "No, of course not."
>
> I notice you still avoid saying it directly and resort instead to quoting
> an old post.
Cui bono, to whose benefit would that be? Not mine. I mean, it'd contradict
giving PeekTV an interview that makes the Loaded article look like the Lord's
Prayer, wouldn't it?
But since funny animal fandom is about sex and all, I'm certain you won't
mind...
> (And it's new to me; I never saw or
> read that post before, so it's a fresh revelation.)
Careful, Chuck... that _almost_ sounded like an apology. And you said that's
the last thing you wanted to do, remember? That would be admitting you were
wrong, and we just can't let that happen. It's like Mer'rark used to say, if
there's nothing negative around we'll make stuff up to keep ourselves from
getting bored.
In other words, it's more fun to argue with me about stuff you made up instead
of viewpoints I actually hold, right?
Yeah, I thought so.
_____________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx "Teflon-Coated" Squeakypony, K.S.C.
No-Longer-Obligated Former Ambassador to Furry Fandom
alt.fan.furry's Demented Version Of Mark Twain
Ask Me About My Boycott Of Mu Press
Farlo
>xyd...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>> Now I'm back to being a hardcore High Priest Of Latex,
>
>Oh, like THIS is exactly what the fandom needs....
>
Right - what we really need is a SOFTCORE High Priest of Latex.
(and, some inflatable skunkettes).
An inflatable Chakat(?) would be so cute!
CF12 - "Revenge of the Helium-Filled Inflatable Vixens" =:)
- now at a planning stage near you!!!
-------------------
Farlo m>*_*<m
Urban Fey Dragon
Standard XXXX
@abac.com XXXX
-------------------
These people don't approve of spam (AFAIK) and
e-mail (UCE) sent to them will get you in trouble:
postmaster@[127.0.0.1]
abuse@[127.0.0.1]
tos...@aol.com
ab...@mci.net
MAILER-DAEMON@[127.0.0.1]
.@[127.0.0.1]
..@[127.0.0.1]
root@[127.0.0.1]
Chuck Melville
<6qv6qk$aq5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > > The problem is that whenever I say it, you ignore it.
> >
> > Probably because I've never heard you say it.
>
> Yeah, you never heard me say anything about boycotting Mu Press, either.
We have seen you intimate it in the past, yes; nor was I the only one to
comment on it either, if you'll recall. And as usual, you couched it in
indirect terms -- presumably to leave your hands unbloodied so you could
blithely deny making any such statements.
> > I notice you still avoid saying it directly and resort instead to
quoting
> > an old post.
>
> Cui bono, to whose benefit would that be? Not mine.
I should think it would be, as it gives you an opportunity to be direct
for a change, rather than circuitous and roundabout.
> > (And it's new to me; I never saw or
> > read that post before, so it's a fresh revelation.)
>
> Careful, Chuck... that _almost_ sounded like an apology. And you said
that's
> the last thing you wanted to do, remember?
You needn't worry; no apology was implied.
>
> In other words, it's more fun to argue with me about stuff you made up
instead
> of viewpoints I actually hold, right?
>
Arguing with you is not a matter of enjoyment -- it simply occurs; and I
haven't needed to make up anything, since your actions usually speak
clearer than your words, as Rich has also pointed out elsewhere.
>
> But since funny animal fandom is about sex and all, I'm certain you won't
> mind...
>
Are you now saying that it is? No, I suppose you're trying to be either
amusing or ironic, though it falls flat on both accounts.
Some folks don't know when to leave well enough alone. Obviously you're
-not- ready to end this discussion, so we may as well continue on.
Funny animal fandom -- or furry fandom, as some prefer -- is about
anthropomorphics. Ostensibly. We agree on this point, at least on the
surface. Because that is the way it is supposed to be, no more, no less.
So when you say it, it is, on the surface, true. It is not, ostensibly,
about sex.
However: furry fandom -as it is practiced- IS about sex. You don't need
more proof than to look through a Mailbox Books flyer. The latest I've
received within the past week features 114 different books, zines, and
portfolios. Of these, 70 are either adult or mature, featuring material
ranging from softcore pin-ups to hardcore sex scenes. That's 61% of the
material offered -- and that doesn't even get into the extra page featuring
the out-of-print items for sale.
Nearly every furry web site includes an erotica page; virtually every
archive features erotic art (Yerf being an exception, of course). The
MUCKS are awash in it, featuring dungeons, brothels, pet auctions, and
harems. The best selling furry comics have been GENUS and WILD KINGDOM --
sex comics. The furry con art shows maintain an x-rated section -- and
that art is generally when the auction money goes. There are at least
three newsgroups that present furry sex art.
This is not a -little- interest in furry sex... it is a -lot- of furry
sex; it is not merely incidental -- it is a prime ingredient It argues
quite dynamically that the interests of quite a few furs is -specifically-
on sex, maybe even -entirely- upon the sex. The demand -- and the response
-- has been more for sex than for any other interest within furry
interpretation. To say, therefore, that furry is -not- about sex at all is
an incredibly fatuous statement.
And, therefore, furry -as it is perceived- is -also- about sex. Because
these are the images and sides that newcomers and outsiders see most
prominently, and these are the aspects that most influence them, usually
quite negatively. This is why we keep getting negative press in sleaze
zines like LOADED and BIZARRE, and this is why the perception will continue
to perpetuate.
This is what I mean by lies of omission: these are the facts that you
gloss over everytime you burble, "Furry is about anthropomorphics". You
are clinically correct, but not correct in the practical or factual sense.
--
K. Xydexx Jorgensen
>Xydexx Squeakypony writes:
> > Now I'm back to being a hardcore High Priest Of Latex,
>
> Oh, like THIS is exactly what the fandom needs....
Heh. Who says I'm doing it for the fandom?
This might come as a surprise to you, but furry fandom isn't the only
interest I have. And Goddess knows being High Priest of Latex is a heck
of a lot more fun than being Ambassador to Furry Fandom ever was.
There's less infighting, and I don't have to worry about the first
impression newbies and the media get anymore. -:P
In retrospect, Mr. Chandler, I'm not sure why I let you talk me into
being an Ambassador to Furry Fandom in the first place. It's a
thankless job that even you _yourself_ don't seem to be able to take
seriously, so how do you expect anyone else to?
_______________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
No-Longer-Obligated Former Ambassador to Furry Fandom
Hardcore High Priest of Latex, Keeper of the Sacred Clydesdale
Don Sanders
>xyd...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
><6qv6qk$aq5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>> > > The problem is that whenever I say it, you ignore it.
>> >
>> > Probably because I've never heard you say it.
>>
word "Sex" was used, the word "Erotica" or "Erotic" was used once and the word
"X-rated" used once. I normally don't respond to posts like these, but in
this case, I just could not stand anymore. Pondering the bad things about the
fandom is like pondering the reason of life. I figure many folks out there
feel like they wished they never heard of the fandom. I for one has those
thoughts.
Yea, I know, somebody is going to say, "if you can't stand the heat, get out
of the fandom!" well, I wish it was that easy! I like reading the stories,
heck, I write anthromorphic stories. I like to see the art, I even do art
myself on a amateur basis! Just because a few out there draw erotic art does
not mean the death knell of the fandom! Yeesh! This reminds me of a
situation my local goverment had to face. A bookstore which sold adult
reading material was forced to move away from the buisness district by a
petition from the citizens. When they moved to the outskirts of town away
from easy access, they were still hounded by said citizens who went out of
their way to make sure they were not welcomed.
Normally I would add to this with some example in human life, but in the past,
I have been accused of injecting racism into a subject. so I won't and
please, just because I used the word does not mean I am implying it in this
case!!!!!!!!!
Ok, I had my say, I figure if you keep ranting about what Furry is about, it
will just get compounded.
(one sad chow uncertain about the future.)
Don Sanders
Dsan Tsan on #furry and on FurryMuck
Valsen Tsan on Tapestries
Artist at Roll Yer Own Graphics
http://www.dreamscape.com/dsand101/dsan.htm
(my furry page) Email dsan...@future.dreamscape.com
Allen Kitchen
Don Sanders <noo...@myemail.com> wrote in article
<6r18sl$m77$1...@chaos.ao.net>...
> Sheeeh!!! while reading through this thread, I found 9 incidents where
the
> word "Sex" was used, the word "Erotica" or "Erotic" was used once and the
word
> "X-rated" used once. I normally don't respond to posts like these, but
in
> this case, I just could not stand anymore. Pondering the bad things
about the
> fandom is like pondering the reason of life. I figure many folks out
there
> feel like they wished they never heard of the fandom. I for one has
those
> thoughts.
Hey there, oh Chow writer.
Don't pay much mind to these folks. They've been firing at each
other for years, and I dont' see any sign of it letting up. Fresh
ammo trucks have just pulled up to both sides of the AFF field.
Both sides are going to do what they want, regardless of what
happens or gets said here. Ignore them.
Invest your emotional energy wisely, my friend. Not all threads
are good investments.
>
> Normally I would add to this with some example in human life, but in the
past,
> I have been accused of injecting racism into a subject. so I won't and
> please, just because I used the word does not mean I am implying it in
this
> case!!!!!!!!!
Huh??? Who charged you with racism, and for what??
I cannot even conceive of you saying something so harsh
and hateful Dsan! *pats the chow on the back*
> Ok, I had my say, I figure if you keep ranting about what Furry is about,
it
> will just get compounded.
>
> (one sad chow uncertain about the future.)
One day both groups will realize that neither of them
is right or wrong, and that things have moved on without
any concern for their opinions or concerns. So don't be
worried for the future. It looks bright for the fandom,
regardless of what certain people do. This debate is
full of sound and fury, and you know what that signifys...
Or is that "sound and furry"? :)
Take it easy Chow!
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
http://www.blkbox.com/~osprey/furry.html
xyd...@my-dejanews.com
> However: furry fandom -as it is practiced- IS about sex. You don't need
> more proof than to look through a Mailbox Books flyer. The latest I've
> received within the past week features 114 different books, zines, and
> portfolios. Of these, 70 are either adult or mature, featuring material
> ranging from softcore pin-ups to hardcore sex scenes. That's 61% of the
> material offered -- and that doesn't even get into the extra page featuring
> the out-of-print items for sale.
> Nearly every furry web site includes an erotica page; virtually every
> archive features erotic art (Yerf being an exception, of course). The
> MUCKS are awash in it, featuring dungeons, brothels, pet auctions, and
> harems. The best selling furry comics have been GENUS and WILD KINGDOM --
> sex comics. The furry con art shows maintain an x-rated section -- and
> that art is generally when the auction money goes. There are at least
> three newsgroups that present furry sex art.
> This is not a -little- interest in furry sex... it is a -lot- of furry
> sex; it is not merely incidental -- it is a prime ingredient It argues
> quite dynamically that the interests of quite a few furs is -specifically-
> on sex, maybe even -entirely- upon the sex. The demand -- and the response
> -- has been more for sex than for any other interest within furry
> interpretation. To say, therefore, that furry is -not- about sex at all is
> an incredibly fatuous statement.
Wow. And here I was thinking furry fandom was about anthropomorphics all this
time. Thanks for helping me see the light, Chuck. The next time someone asks
me what furry fandom is about, I'll just repeat what you said here.
Who knows, if I'm lucky maybe somebody will use that quote for an article or
something. -:)
-------
Rev. Xydexx "Teflon Coated" Squeakypony
No-Longer-Obligated, yada yada yada....
K. Xydexx Jorgensen
Allen Kitchen wrote:
> Don't pay much mind to these folks. They've been firing at each
> other for years, and I dont' see any sign of it letting up.
This is alt.fan.furry, what did you expect?
> Fresh ammo trucks have just pulled up to both sides of the AFF field.
Yeah, but I'm using cream pies this time around. -:)
_______________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
K. Xydexx Jorgensen
>Xydexx says:
> > Yeah, you never heard me say anything about boycotting Mu Press, either.
>
> We have seen you intimate it in the past, yes; nor was I the only one to
> comment on it either, if you'll recall. And as usual, you couched it in
> indirect terms -- presumably to leave your hands unbloodied so you could
> blithely deny making any such statements.
Xydexx grins like Carly Simon, showing All Those Teeth, and skips around
in that wild and crazy third person posting style that everyone loves,
and quite spontaneously begins to sing:
"You're so vain...
You probably think this song is about you.
You're so vaaaaaaaiinnn,
I bet you think this song is about you.
Don't you?
Don't you?"
(By the way, I guess you forgot I had stated I was referring to Wired
Magazine. The whole idea that I was organizing a boycott against Mu
Press was the product of overly-paranoid individuals who have nothing
better to do than argue with me about things I never said. The only
reason I ever mention it is the fact that the rumor continues to be a
source of amusement for myself and others to this day, especially since
you were the first person to use the words "boycott" and "Mu Press" in
the same sentence.)
It's like a strange little joke:
"What's so funny about Xydexx's boycott of Mu Press?"
"It doesn't exist."
See? An oldie but a goodie. Like a dog that says "Good Morning" and
then disappears in a puff of green smoke, this is definitely funny. But
then, I think this whole newsgroup is one big comedy routine these days.
> Arguing with you is not a matter of enjoyment -- it simply occurs; and I
> haven't needed to make up anything, since your actions usually speak
> clearer than your words, as Rich has also pointed out elsewhere.
Yeah, yeah... and other people have pointed out I'm boycotting Mu
Press... I know...
> Some folks don't know when to leave well enough alone. Obviously you're
> -not- ready to end this discussion, so we may as well continue on.
Ah. Glutton for punishment, hm? And here I thought you didn't have any
kinks.
Chuck Melville
> Sheeeh!!! while reading through this thread, I found 9 incidents where
the
> word "Sex" was used, the word "Erotica" or "Erotic" was used once and the
word
> "X-rated" used once. I normally don't respond to posts like these, but
in
> this case, I just could not stand anymore. Pondering the bad things
about the
> fandom is like pondering the reason of life.
...yes...? And your point is...?
>
> Yea, I know, somebody is going to say, "if you can't stand the heat, get
out
> of the fandom!" well, I wish it was that easy! I like reading the
stories,
> heck, I write anthromorphic stories. I like to see the art, I even do
art
> myself on a amateur basis! Just because a few out there draw erotic art
does
> not mean the death knell of the fandom!
Don, keep in mind here that thus far in the previous post all I have done
is to point out the high level of sex in Furry Fandom, proving the point
that -as it is practiced- Furry is indeed about sex. As of yet, I've said
nothing about the sex being good or evil -- other than to point the obvious
links to the write-ups we've been receiving in the sleeze zines.
> Yeesh! This reminds me of a
> situation my local goverment had to face. A bookstore which sold adult
> reading material was forced to move away from the buisness district by a
> petition from the citizens. When they moved to the outskirts of town
away
> from easy access, they were still hounded by said citizens who went out
of
> their way to make sure they were not welcomed.
Again... your point is...? That democracy in action is reprehensible in
some fashion? Whether you agree with the results or not, it sounds as
though the matter was handled legally. You say they were later hounded --
how so? By another petition, or by late-night drive-by bombings?
--
Chuck Melville
<6r1qkb$t2m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
I'm sure you will... just as I'm sure that you'll quote me out of context
-- again -- and twist it to make it sound as though I meant something other
than what I just put plainly and clearly in the above statement.
>
> Who knows, if I'm lucky maybe somebody will use that quote for an article
or
> something. -:)
>
>
Hopefully that somebody will prove a bit more responsible and check their
sources before using -any- quotes.
--
Chuck Melville
<6r23bt$ovc$1...@eve.enteract.com>...
> xyd...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> : Chuck Melville wrote:
> (much snippage)
>
> : Wow. And here I was thinking furry fandom was about anthropomorphics
all this
> : time. Thanks for helping me see the light, Chuck. The next time
someone asks
> : me what furry fandom is about, I'll just repeat what you said here.
>
> bit, you might find that what he posted was accurate. He didn't say he
> wanted furry to be equated with sexual stuff but as it is currently
> handled by the fans and artists, it is about that to a fair extent. So
the
> question then becomes how do we change that so furry can be more equated
> with anthropomorphics rather than kinky sex (which there is no problem
> with in and of itself).
Thank you, Karl. I'm gratified to know that -someone- understood the
points being made.
> Perhaps some suggestions from earlier in this meandering series of
threads
> would help. Buy more non-erotic furry art (particularly if you've asked
> artists to draw it). Vote with your dollars in the art shows and auctions
> at furry cons. If artists see that they can make a decent amount on
> non-erotic art, they will draw more of it and outsiders and new furries
> will see more of it. AAC was a good example of this. Attend and support
> cons with less emphasis on the sexual side of the fandom. Watch what you
> show to non-furries or newbies. They will discover Genus and such on
> their own but if it's not their cup of tea it would be nice if they'd
> already seen that there was a lot of non-spooge available.
Absolutely. Good advice.
There's nothing wrong with furry erotica in and of itself; there -is- a
place for it in furry fandom. But there is an imbalance of such work, and
it overwhelms all else. We need to encourage more creativity in other
aspects of furry works, and you've mentioned all the right ways. I missed
out on AAC this year, but I remember last year's show, and I was impressed
by the initial turnout of work and the reception from those buying art.
> If there are
> other furries in the vicinity then get together and do something fun
> outside the fandom. I'm fortunate in that we have a rather active group
in
> the area who tends to go to movies, amusement parks, ren faires, the zoo,
> etc. The number of known furries in the area just keeps rising as a
> result and I don't think most of them would say the local fandom was
about
> sex.
>
We have a couple of groups up here in Seattle that do the same; over the
summer we also do barbeques, whale trips, and go bowling. During such
events we also discuss and deal with furry art and stories, sharing ideas
and such, but the non-furry interests get shared as well.
Daphne Lage
>> If you'd stop with the sarcasm and arguing for the sake of arguing for a
>> bit, you might find that what he posted was accurate. He didn't say he
>> wanted furry to be equated with sexual stuff but as it is currently
>> handled by the fans and artists, it is about that to a fair extent. So
>the
>> question then becomes how do we change that so furry can be more equated
>> with anthropomorphics rather than kinky sex (which there is no problem
>> with in and of itself).
>
> Thank you, Karl. I'm gratified to know that -someone- understood the
>points being made.
You can count me in as well.
From the very beginning, furry fandom to me was always about anthropomorphic
art and stories. But if you were to base furry fandom on what was being
sought after and purchased, you will end up with a very different
definition. My erotic prints and products always outsells the clean stuff
easily 2 to 1. A majority of my art requests are erotic in nature. I have
actually had people ask me if TALL TAILS was ever going to get on the
"spoogie side" since that was what they were interested in. Vision has done
a "Nude Variant" cover for TALL TAILS because we knew there *will* be an
interest in such a product.
Not to be flippant but at its core if you want to make some quick money in
the fandom all you have to do is create some kind of erotic-themed project
(extra points if it's also gay related). Even Ed Zolna has shown little
interest in carrying my non-erotic items (unless it's all about vixens, of
course ;) ). It's no wonder that furry fandom has the reputation that it's a
sex fandom because that's where most of the interest lies. Sure, many people
have complained about the lack of "clean stuff" for purchase but when the
clean stuff *is* available, it's always guaranteed to be a much tougher sell
(making it less attractive for most fandom artists to bother with it as a
result). New conventions have popped up in reaction to the more "out-there"
nature of ConFURence especially, but going through the dealer's room usually
reveals the same problems, except now all the erotica is forced to be
covered up.
Part of why sex is so prevalent in the fandom can be summed up by the fact
that clean furry stuff can be found *anywhere* from toy stores to
Blockbuster Video. Now, if it's erotica you want, then a place has to be
created for that - and that's where the fandom comes in.
Is furry fandom about anthropomorphic stories and art? Yes it is.
But is furry fandom about sex as well? As much as we don't like to admit it,
it is.
Now the real problem lies in trying to get mundanes to look beyond the sex
and look at anthropomorphics as a *genre* - that furries are only another
type of storytelling medium. But how can we expect "outsiders" to do that
when it seems that *we* can't either?
Funny though... now that I think about it... if furry fandom is concidered a
sex fandom because of all the erotica, how come no one calls furry fandom a
vixen fandom? You'd think the same logic would apply... I mean, people do
complain about how many foxes are out there but not as much as how many
*naked* foxes (and other species as well) are out there.
*shrug*
--Daphne Lage
****************************************************************
The EgoWorks - Free catalog available -
http://www.intercall.com/~egoraven/
****************************************************************
TALL TAILS - The Official Homepage
http://www.intercall.com/~egoraven/ttmain.htm
****************************************************************
The Secret of N.I.M.H. Justin and Jenner Shrine
http://www.intercall.com/~egoraven/nimh.htm
****************************************************************
"The only thing you can change is yourself,
but sometimes that changes everything." - Anonymous
****************************************************************
Daphne Lage
> Hopefully that somebody will prove a bit more responsible and check their
>sources before using -any- quotes.
>
A *responsible* journalist?
I think Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and Easter Bunny have something to
sell you... *evil smile*
Don Sanders
>Don Sanders <noo...@myemail.com> wrote in article
><6r18sl$m77$1...@chaos.ao.net>...
>
>the
>> word "Sex" was used, the word "Erotica" or "Erotic" was used once and the
>word
>> "X-rated" used once. I normally don't respond to posts like these, but
>in
>> this case, I just could not stand anymore. Pondering the bad things
>about the
>> fandom is like pondering the reason of life.
>
There may not be a point ot all this. Trying to find reason to what is being
discussed is getting harder and harder each time it is discussed.
>
>>
>> Yea, I know, somebody is going to say, "if you can't stand the heat, get
>out
>> of the fandom!" well, I wish it was that easy! I like reading the
>stories,
>> heck, I write anthromorphic stories. I like to see the art, I even do
>art
>> myself on a amateur basis! Just because a few out there draw erotic art
>does
>> not mean the death knell of the fandom!
>
>
> Don, keep in mind here that thus far in the previous post all I have
> done
>is to point out the high level of sex in Furry Fandom, proving the point
>that -as it is practiced- Furry is indeed about sex. As of yet, I've said
>nothing about the sex being good or evil -- other than to point the obvious
>links to the write-ups we've been receiving in the sleeze zines.
>
Yep, if you dig into it enough, high levels of it would be found, more like if
someone went door to door at night to see how many folks are having sex. The
disclosure of high levels of sex in the furry fandom has only been because it
has been hyped up by all sides. Not a chance of it remaining quiet so the
rest of us can go on with our day to day furry activities.
>> Yeesh! This reminds me of a
>> situation my local goverment had to face. A bookstore which sold adult
>> reading material was forced to move away from the buisness district by a
>> petition from the citizens. When they moved to the outskirts of town
>away
>> from easy access, they were still hounded by said citizens who went out
>of
>> their way to make sure they were not welcomed.
>
> Again... your point is...? That democracy in action is reprehensible
> in
>some fashion? Whether you agree with the results or not, it sounds as
>though the matter was handled legally. You say they were later hounded --
>how so? By another petition, or by late-night drive-by bombings?
>
>
Once more I point to that word called "Hype!" Tis Hype that killed that
situation that I mentioned above in my eariler post. All I am saying is that
with all the highten levels of sex and erotica in the fandom that is being
pointed out and brought to light, how many positive things about the fandom
can anyone mention??? As for myself, I can see that I am not qualified to
continue in this debate, so I will wait out in the wings and watch from a
distance. I say let the experts sort things out.
(chow returns to the porch and watches the big dogs run the streets.)