Got spooge?
Xydexx Squeakypony
> Why is there so much pornographic material being
> created for this particular fandom?
Why not?
There's nothing wrong with spooge. Nobody's forcing anyone to look at
spooge. Nobody's forcing anyone to draw spooge.
In the Grand Scheme Of Things, worrying about what other people like to
draw isn't very important to me.
--
_________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony http://www.xydexx.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Xydexx Squeakypony
> Xydexx Squeakypony wrote:
> > There's nothing wrong with spooge.
>
>
> "Portal of Evil", anyone?
I see.
So you're anti-spooge, then?
--
_________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony http://www.xydexx.com
"If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for
who we really are."---Jean-Luc Picard, Star Trek
Sarenthalanos
<FromTheDes...@stukafox.com> wrote in message
news:8middi$242$3...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> Xydexx Squeakypony <xyd...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
> > There's nothing wrong with spooge.
>
>
>
> Save the negative reflection it generates for the hobby.
>
> "Portal of Evil", anyone?
>
>
This is not directed completely at you, but a bit in general as well.
To sum up this possibly long-winded spiel::
Live with it, it's part of life.
By your logic, then all anime carries a bad light because of hentai/ecchi
works, and the "tentacle thing" plagues many USA anime-style artists who
take themselves a bit too seriously. The Japanese artists don't care
whatsoever, because in their culture, anime is like movies to US culture.
It has material for kids, material for teens, and material for adults. If
you have been in more than one college-level sociology class (I think it's
third-year that they stress this), then you would know that in a "Free
Society", which US is basically a variant of free-society, people tend to
"group" people together, for easy identification. In a place where there is
an abundance of material...let's face it, the human mind in it's simplicity
likes to categorize people/topics into groups based upon their own ideas,
despite any misconceptions and mistruths, etc. So, to most USanians, Anime
is all the same.
Now, let's apply this to the BDSM subculture.
A lot consider the BDSM subculture to promote rape and such, even if that's
not the truth at all. I'll throw a couple of misconceptions at you, and how
they are grouped. These are not the truth, but it's how "mainstream" people
look at the subculture.
"BDSM people like to tie other people up and have their way with them."
"Rapists like to tie other people up and have their way with them."
Now, the human mind will put 2 and 3 together and get 4. Most people would
not bother getting the whole facts before making their assumptions (insert
Benny Hill joke here, if you'd like), because they like simplicity. Now,
onto the next assumption (feel free to insert aformentioned joke from above
here as well).
"BDSM people like to hurt and dominate over other people for the feeling of
power."
"Serial killers/rapists often hurt people for the feeling of dominance and
superiority."
It leads to too many misconceptions and assumptions.
Then, let's look at some art.
Some think that ANY kind of nudity is pornography. Neverminding the fact of
artwork and the early Olympics. The human body is a tad hard to draw
correctly, and from trying my hand at it a couple of times, I'll settle with
architecture anyday. Yeah, it's easier, but it's what I can do with my huge
hands. Back to the point of this paragraph. Some think that ANY bit of
nudity is exploiting whomever, or is designed to be offensive. Those are
the ones that likely got raised around nudie mags being "pure evil", so
anything that has a bit of nudity MUST be "evil" as well.
Now, onto furry.
So some make incorrect assumptions. Big deal. If they want to be like
cattle and eat everything they are fed, instead of learning about things on
their own, then that's their problem. You know furry doesn't mean 90' herm
dogs with erections that can knock over buildings (no offense Doug), but
it's a part of the fandom nonetheless. Just like Fritz the Cat and Bugs
Bunny can both be grouped together because they are cartoons. Bring in
someone that doesn't know much about cartoons, and have them watch Fritz,
then Bugs Bunny....of course, when they see ol' Bugs plant one on Yosemite's
kisser, they might draw the conclusion that all cartoons might be that way.
But it's THEIR fault if they don't want to learn more about it. If they are
going to be half-assed about it, then they can go through life with those
kinds of assumptions, and may natural selection take it's course. And then,
you have to figure on the US being one of the most Puritanistic societies on
the planet. Hell, the BBC doesn't care too much to censor out sex
references. But the US is quick to jump on that, etc.
But then, of course, the US is so diverse enough to be the only country that
could possibly tolerate the Christian Coalition, where their spokesmen are
treated like gods themselves (idolizing, anyone?), and where it's ok to
harrass others "because it's God's will" or "it's in the name of God". They
can label whatever tey want as "evil", and forget the Amendment that states
Freedom of Religion, but unfortunately your Freedom stops where another's
begins. Anyways, I digress...
I've talked about this before, but it's impossible to get rid of the spooge
or "unwanted stuff". I'll admit I like browsing through a lot of archives
of plain, cheesecake, and even a bit of hardcore spooge. So everyone might
as well live with it, because it's not going away. If you want to try and
get a better light on the fandom, and educate people a bit more, then do so.
Make informative places where people can learn about furry and it's various
diversities, so they know that their first assumtpion was incorrect.
Complaining about it does nothing, informing would help a lot more than
hurt, if it was done well.
Anyways, I'm off the soap box for now, and apologies once again for snapping
earlier today.
--
-Sarenthalanos
]=-----------------------------------------------=[
|\ | |\ /| /\ http://fallout.gamestats.com
| \ | | \ / | /__\ No Mutants Allowed
| \| | \/ | / \ Your #1 Fallout site
]=-----------------------------------------------=[
MouseHouse
> I've talked about this before, but it's impossible to get rid of the spooge
> or "unwanted stuff".
Notwithstanding the points you've made, I question the legitimacy of the word
"unwanted" in this issue, given how widespread these media are in furrdom.
--
***********
Visit the MouseHouse!
http://www.furnation.com/mousehouse/
Xydexx Squeakypony
> I'm pro-image. Spooge is part of the whole scene, I just wish it
> wasn't such a big or easily noticable part.
I'm pro-image too. I guess the difference with me is that I see sites
like Portal of Evil that make this stuff easily noticable are more of a
problem than furry artists who put warnings and stuff up so folks can
easily avoid it.
Leslie_R
>
> Xydexx Squeakypony <xyd...@blowmy-dejanozzle.com> wrote:
>
> > I see.
>
> > So you're anti-spooge, then?
>
> wasn't such a big or easily noticable part.
>
to paraphrase Captain Packrat earlier "you don't like the image it gives
the fandom? encourage people to stop pointing at it and yelling"
-Leslie
--
"Now we are so happy, we do the Dance of Joy!"
-Balki Bartokamouse
Hangdog
> Xydexx Squeakypony <xyd...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > There's nothing wrong with spooge.
>
> Save the negative reflection it generates for the hobby.
>
> "Portal of Evil", anyone?
Furry Fandom: Portal of Evil or a Bozo Nightmare?
--Hang(One's gotta weasel anna other's gotta flag)dog
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
> There's nothing wrong with spooge.
Save the negative reflection it generates for the hobby.
"Portal of Evil", anyone?
StukaFox
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
MechaSquirrel
>Xydexx Squeakypony <xyd...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> There's nothing wrong with spooge.
>
> Save the negative reflection it generates for the hobby.
The only negative reflection I've percieved is what some of the
members of the hobby themselves think of it.
From what I've seen, we're pretty spotless, compared to several.
Hentai, anyone?
MechaSquirrel
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
> The only negative reflection I've percieved is what some of the
> members of the hobby themselves think of it.
You should perhaps check out www.portalofevil.com to see what
people outside the hobby are saying.
StukaFox
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
> I'm pro-image too. I guess the difference with me is that I see sites
> like Portal of Evil that make this stuff easily noticable are more of a
> problem than furry artists who put warnings and stuff up so folks can
> easily avoid it.
If the stuff is going to be out there on the web, the realistic
expectation has to be it's going to be seen, since that's the whole
idea of putting it out on the web. The image damage to the hobby
isn't negated simply because you feel the real problem is that
someone outside the hobby shone a light on some less salient aspects
of the hobby that were being presented for the whole world to see
in the first place.
The 'real politik' of the situation is that people with no idea of
what furry is aren't going to look at Gontermann, et al, and go
"Gosh, that awful Portal of Evil put this on display for everyone
to see!", they're gonna go "What the FUCK is wrong with these people?"
which is fully evidenced by the feedback PoE has recieved on each
furry site posted.
The argument that furry's image problem is in fact the problem of
everybody BUT furry falls hopelessly limp as more and more lights
get shone on more and more dark corners.
StukaFox
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
> to paraphrase Captain Packrat earlier "you don't like the image it gives
> the fandom? encourage people to stop pointing at it and yelling"
That idea, while sweet, is also tragically naive'. More and more
sites like Portal of Evil are going to find an easy target in
furry -- yelling at them to stop making us look bad, well, makes
us look bad. Neighbors complain about your house being an eyesore?
Don't blame your neighbors, clean up your backyard. As I've said
before, as long as furry is handing out ammo, it shouldn't be suprised
when someone takes a shot at it.
StukaFox
Leslie_R
>
> Leslie_R <tro...@atoka.net> wrote:
>
> > to paraphrase Captain Packrat earlier "you don't like the image it gives
> > the fandom? encourage people to stop pointing at it and yelling"
>
> That idea, while sweet, is also tragically naive'. More and more
> sites like Portal of Evil are going to find an easy target in
> furry -- yelling at them to stop making us look bad, well, makes
> us look bad. Neighbors complain about your house being an eyesore?
> Don't blame your neighbors, clean up your backyard.
but if there is a fence around yoru backyard but people keep pering over
it, maybe turning off the lights on the bakc porch and turning on the
ones on the front to show off the well-maicured lawn would be an idea..
spooge is here, it may tarnish the fandom or it may not.. instead of
arguing over it's effect on th efandom image do something abut the
image itself
As I've said
> before, as long as furry is handing out ammo, it shouldn't be suprised
> when someone takes a shot at it.
>
> StukaFox
Hangdog
> FromTheDes...@stukafox.com wrote:
> >
> > Xydexx Squeakypony <xyd...@blowmy-dejanozzle.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I see.
> >
> > > So you're anti-spooge, then?
> >
> > I'm pro-image. Spooge is part of the whole scene, I just wish it
> > wasn't such a big or easily noticable part.
> >
> > StukaFox
>
> to paraphrase Captain Packrat earlier "you don't like the image it gives
> the fandom? encourage people to stop pointing at it and yelling"
Yet another attempt to blame the messenger...
Xydexx Squeakypony
> Yes, spooge is here, and it's not going away. It even serves a
> purpose, but why is there only one 'Yerf'?
Probably because some folks would rather complain instead of actually
doing something to fix the problem.
At least that's my opinion, based on the fact that there's nothing
stopping anyone who wanted another 'Yerf' from creating one. But then,
I've always thought creating things you like accomplishes more than
complaining about the things you don't. -:)
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
> but if there is a fence around yoru backyard but people keep pering over
> it, maybe turning off the lights on the bakc porch and turning on the
> ones on the front to show off the well-maicured lawn would be an idea..
> spooge is here, it may tarnish the fandom or it may not.. instead of
> arguing over it's effect on th efandom image do something abut the
> image itself
Furry's 'fence' is about an inch high and labled 'Warning: this
place is a mess, but if you're offended by the site of it, it's
all your fault. We're perfect, you have the problem.'
Yes, spooge is here, and it's not going away. It even serves a
purpose, but why is there only one 'Yerf'?
StukaFox
Xydexx Squeakypony
> The argument that furry's image problem is in fact the problem of
> everybody BUT furry falls hopelessly limp as more and more lights
> get shone on more and more dark corners.
The argument is not that it isn't our problem.
The argument is that Portal of Evil is deliberately skewing the image
they're presenting.
We may not like it, but aside from banning all spooge art, I don't see
how it'll stop it from happening.
Since spooge art isn't going away, it's pretty pointless to suggest
people stop drawing it or putting it online. It's far more productive
to direct newcomers to things like Yerf and put things like that in the
spotlight instead.
Support what you like. Ignore what you don't.
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
> The argument is not that it isn't our problem.
The sites are ours, but they're not our problem?
> The argument is that Portal of Evil is deliberately skewing the image
> they're presenting.
PoE isn't out to present any view -- they're out to laugh at freaks.
We're being laughed at, because we're being viewed as freaks.
> We may not like it, but aside from banning all spooge art, I don't see
> how it'll stop it from happening.
'Restraint'.
>
> Support what you like. Ignore what you don't.
The problem with ignoring problems is they sometimes come back and
bite you.
StukaFox
Sarenthalanos
<FromTheDes...@stukafox.com> wrote in message
news:8mj2tl$ult$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> Xydexx Squeakypony <xyd...@blowmy-dejanozzle.com> wrote:
>
> > The argument is not that it isn't our problem.
>
>
> The sites are ours, but they're not our problem?
Then if we want to be taken seriously, then we should do something about it.
> > The argument is that Portal of Evil is deliberately skewing the image
> > they're presenting.
>
>
> PoE isn't out to present any view -- they're out to laugh at freaks.
> We're being laughed at, because we're being viewed as freaks.
Time to educate people then.
> > We may not like it, but aside from banning all spooge art, I don't see
> > how it'll stop it from happening.
>
>
> 'Restraint'.
Not feasable nor likely. Spooge will be there, that's a fact we have to
live with. Not that I'm against it or anything.
However, I believe that education is the most viable option.
Telling the mockers to piss off isn't doing anything.
Telling fellow fans that they shouldn't draw spooge only gets everyone at
each other's throats.
So that leaves educating. Which I have seen a startling LACK of what most
fandoms have, and that is an in-depth explanation and introduction.
We could compile something to tell about how things are a part of the
fandom, or things might be practiced by the fandom, but they are not
necessarily THE prime aspects of the fandom.
> >
> > Support what you like. Ignore what you don't.
>
>
> The problem with ignoring problems is they sometimes come back and
> bite you.
Unfortunately, just sitting back and griping causes even more problems.
So what's left?
Let's try to educate people on what "furry" means, to try and get them to
understand a bit more about it.
Then, providing they have sufficient practice with their residential
gray-matter, things shouldn't be so bad.
Skytech
> At least that's my opinion, based on the fact that there's nothing
> stopping anyone who wanted another 'Yerf' from creating one. But then,
> I've always thought creating things you like accomplishes more than
> complaining about the things you don't. -:)
>
I always noticed people find it easier to honk the horn than hit the brakes.
--
Skytech
Skytech
> You should perhaps check out www.portalofevil.com to see what
> people outside the hobby are saying.
>
Both of them? :)
--
Skytech
Xydexx Squeakypony
> Xydexx Squeakypony wrote:
> > The argument is not that it isn't our problem.
>
> The sites are ours, but they're not our problem?
> > The argument is that Portal of Evil is deliberately skewing the image
> > they're presenting.
>
> PoE isn't out to present any view -- they're out to laugh at freaks.
> We're being laughed at, because we're being viewed as freaks.
We're being laughed at because they had no intention of doing otherwise.
The world doesn't revolve around Portal of Evil, though.
> > We may not like it, but aside from banning all spooge art, I don't see
> > how it'll stop it from happening.
>
> 'Restraint'.
How is that different from banning all spooge art?
> > Support what you like. Ignore what you don't.
>
> The problem with ignoring problems is they sometimes come back and
> bite you.
I still don't think what other people like to draw is a problem.
--
_________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony http://www.xydexx.com
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
>>
>> 'Restraint'.
>
> How is that different from banning all spooge art?
- It comes from within, not from without. It's putting selfishness
aside for the good of the whole hobby. It's saying 'I'm not going
to sell out my hobby just so I can make some money off other
people's mastubatory fantasies' or 'This probably doesn't so much
represent furry as it does my own sexual fantasies, so I won't
associate this stuff with furry on my web page' or even 'I'll show
my tamer erotica stuff on the web-page, but the raunchier stuff
I'll put behind a password-protected frontdoor, and people can
email me for the password if they want it.'
It's that easy. No censorship, no banning -- self-restraint. You've
done it yourself on your own web pages; are you any poorer for it?
StukaFox
Xydexx Squeakypony
> Xydexx Squeakypony wrote:
>
> - It comes from within, not from without. It's putting selfishness
> aside for the good of the whole hobby. It's saying 'I'm not going
> to sell out my hobby just so I can make some money off other
> people's mastubatory fantasies' or 'This probably doesn't so much
> represent furry as it does my own sexual fantasies, so I won't
> associate this stuff with furry on my web page' or even 'I'll show
> my tamer erotica stuff on the web-page, but the raunchier stuff
> I'll put behind a password-protected frontdoor, and people can
> email me for the password if they want it.'
password?
I agree that folks shouldn't go putting the raunchy stuff in other
people's faces as an introduction to furry fandom, but the fact remains
Portal of Evil just finds this stuff because---as even you
admit---they're just out to "laugh at freaks," not to write a balanced
view of furry fandom.
Point is, if we can find the ranchy stuff, so can they. The only way to
stop them from finding it is to eliminate it entirely. That means none
of us can find it either.
So how would self-restraint be any different from banning all spooge art
if the net effect is the same?
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
>
> Uh-huh. And what will stop Portal of Evil from emailing for the
> password?
It's against their rules. Same reason they don't post passwords
to other sites.
> Point is, if we can find the ranchy stuff, so can they. The only way to
> stop them from finding it is to eliminate it entirely. That means none
> of us can find it either.
It's a target-rich vs. a target poor-environment. Right now,
we're target rich. Look how many furry sites PoE lists right
now -- if there were only one, it could pretty much be overlooked,
but as it stands now, furry is about to get its own PoE catagory.
It's not all going to go away, no matter what. If we could lower
the volume, that would help.
And for the last part, finding it ourselves, we do access resources
people outside the hobby aren't likely to access: MU*'s, IRC areas,
conventions and comics. These would probably be good venues for
sharing that sort of information.
StukaFox
Al Goldman
>>Stukafox wrote
>> > We may not like it, but aside from banning all spooge art, I don't see
>> > how it'll stop it from happening.
>>
>> 'Restraint'.
Get the perverts into The Furry Closet.
The facts remain:
No one's religious or personal values are valid for the entire body of furry
fandom.
No one controls furry fandom - copyright, trade marks, etc.
No one has a consensus on what is proper furry behavior.
No one could enforce any standard we would develop.
Regardless of your view of the subject, adult material is a major part of furry
fandom. Wishing that the Evil Pervert Furs would just be quite and go away will
do nothing.
Dwelling on the Treehouse and the Portal Of Evil will also do nothing, except
reinforce a massively distorted view of furry fandom.
We are forced to accept every legal activity by adults in furry fandom - we
have no right or authority to do otherwise, (unless we control some small part
of the fandom like a con or a zine).
People with strong religious beliefs do manage to remain in furry fandom
without dwelling on the objectionable aspects of the fandom. It's called
"tolerance" - learn it, live it. Not because you believe in unlimited personal
freedom but because your experinces in furry fandom will be enhanced when you
stop wasting time fighting unwinable battles.
Maybe some Christian furries could provide some insight on the topic of
tolerance, and how they deal with legal but objectional material.
No furry closets.
>>Stukafox
>Xydexx Squeakypony
Al Goldman
I always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific.
Lily Tomlin
SilverJain
the micking department. A search on the word "furry" yielded only 16 sites. I
counted over 1000 sites on several different pages before I lost track. There's
no doubt somewhere around 2-3000 sites listed.
And only 16 are tagged "furry". (And a lot of those I wouldn't count as furry
at all...) Think about it-- 16 out of possibly 2-3000? Hmm.
They seem to make fun of goths, trekkies, lonely dateless people, gays, white
supremacists, fundamentalist Christians, pedophiles, Japanese fetishists and
just all around kooks far more than they make fun of furries.
Just something I noticed...
--Elin
PS I thought a lot of the commentary and sites on Portal of Evil was hilarious,
but then I have a mean sense of humor.
"Well that's it then, you see what you wanna see and you hear what you wanna
hear." -- The Rock Man, "The Point"
Selling my collections! Check out the deals here:
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/silverjain/
Radio Comix Online:
http://www.radiocomix.com
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<xyd...@BLOWmy-dejaNOZZLE.com> wrote:
>Stukafox wrote:
[...]
>> 'Restraint'.
>
>How is that different from banning all spooge art?
Because with restraint we are still free to BDSM art?
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Al Goldman
silve...@aol.comspampie (SilverJain) writes:
>
>And only 16 are tagged "furry". (And a lot of those I wouldn't count as furry
>at all...) Think about it-- 16 out of possibly 2-3000? Hmm.
>
True, but David Gonterman and Doug Winger both made the site top 10 list.
Xydexx remains in the regular furry list.
Gonterman stranger than Xydexx? The folks at PoE know nothing about weird! :-)
Al Goldman
Do not stand in our way! We will walk around you!
The Perky Goth Manifesto
Farlo
>Do not stand in our way! We will walk around you!
>
> The Perky Goth Manifesto
*Fits of giggling*
--
Farlo
Urban fey dragon
m>^_^<m
Al Goldman
(Farlo) writes:
>Al Goldman wrote:
>
>>Do not stand in our way! We will walk around you!
>>
>> The Perky Goth Manifesto
>
>*Fits of giggling*
>
The full text is somewhere on Gothbunny's webpage, http://www.gothbunny.net
Al Goldman
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> No one's religious or personal values are valid for the entire body
> of furry fandom.
Right, not even that much vaunted "Tolerance" that some people insist all
furry fans have, by nature of being furries. Far from being universal, it
seems more to be tolerance for the Outre', and none for the more normal.
> No one controls furry fandom - copyright, trade marks, etc.
Those, of course, are individual
> No one has a consensus on what is proper furry behavior.
Yeah, there are some whose standard of behaviour consists of "Do what thou
wilt" minus the "An' it harm none" part. Those sorts are usually the ones who
most vigorously fight any attempt to establish proper rules of conduct. It's
gotten so bad that conventions have to write explicit rules of conduct into
their program guides because some people can't be trusted to behave
themselves.
> No one could enforce any standard we would develop.
Here's a question for you. CAN a subculture establish rules for behavior and
methods of enforcing them? Why can't Furry?
--
"if Marylin Manson has more of an influence on a kid than the kid's parents
do, then maybe the parents need to look at how they're raising their kids."
-- Charlie Clouser, Keyboardist, Nine Inch Nails.
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
Xydexx Squeakypony
>Xydexx Squeakypony wrote:
> >Stukafox wrote:
> >> 'Restraint'.
> >
> >How is that different from banning all spooge art?
>
> Because with restraint we are still free to BDSM art?
Woohoo! Three cheers for restraint! Where do I sign up? -:)
Xydexx Squeakypony
> True, but David Gonterman and Doug Winger both made the site top 10 list.
> Xydexx remains in the regular furry list.
>
> Gonterman stranger than Xydexx? The folks at PoE know nothing about weird! :-)
I guess they don't think I'm trying hard enough.
("But I'll show them... I'll show them ALL... muahahahaha...") -;)
Rust
>
> Sarenthalanos wrote:
>
> > I've talked about this before, but it's impossible to get rid of the spooge
> > or "unwanted stuff".
>
> Notwithstanding the points you've made, I question the legitimacy of the word
> "unwanted" in this issue, given how widespread these media are in furrdom.
Well there's the crux, innit?
-Rust
--
We are the instruments of creation - what we dream, is.
Remove ".netspam" from my address to reply
Rust
>
> MechaSquirrel <mechas...@nocrosswindsspam.net> wrote:
>
> > The only negative reflection I've percieved is what some of the
> > members of the hobby themselves think of it.
>
> You should perhaps check out www.portalofevil.com to see what
> people outside the hobby are saying.
What one intentionally vicious person outside the fandom is saying, you
mean.
Rust
Valid. You forgot "valid".
Rust
> > the fandom? encourage people to stop pointing at it and yelling"
>
> sites like Portal of Evil are going to find an easy target in
> furry -- yelling at them to stop making us look bad, well, makes
> us look bad. Neighbors complain about your house being an eyesore?
> before, as long as furry is handing out ammo, it shouldn't be suprised
> when someone takes a shot at it.
Like you, fer instance? I hear a lot more anti-furry-this and
anti-furry-that coming from a few big mouths within the fandom than from
the rest of the world in general. Which is darned interesting,
considering how much larger the world in general is than the fandom.
Rust
> Yes, spooge is here, and it's not going away. It even serves a
> purpose, but why is there only one 'Yerf'?
Because those who -could- be creating others would rather raze
everything they don't agree with instead? Have to wonder which battle
is easier to win, or honourable, even.
Xydexx Squeakypony
> Right, not even that much vaunted "Tolerance" that some people insist all
> furry fans have, by nature of being furries. Far from being universal, it
> seems more to be tolerance for the Outre', and none for the more normal.
stating that I think Brenda DiAntonis is cool. Actually, I know quite a
few Christian folks out there in furry fandom that are cool. I suppose
it's probably a shock to you that I think they're cool even though I'm
not a Christian myself. I mean, you don't see me flaming G. Raymond
Eddy, do you? No, of course not.
But then, I believe in that "much vaunted" tolerance thang ya seem to
like railing against. -:)
Chuck Melville
Xydexx Squeakypony wrote:
>
> Uh-huh. And what will stop Portal of Evil from emailing for the
> password?
>
That's not a tough one to reason out. If they get it, you change the
password. You check to see who recently asked for it, and watch to see who
asks for the new password and see if it happens again; if it does, it should be
easy to track down the culprit and prohibit them from receiving the password in
the future. You maintain vigilance.
Chuck Melville
Al Goldman wrote:
> No one has a consensus on what is proper furry behavior.
>
That's not true. Poll a large number of furry fans for their opinions and
whatever the majority agrees on is your consensus. Get another people to side
with you and you control the consensus.
> No one could enforce any standard we would develop.
>
Forcibly, no. But influentially, sure; it could be done.
>
> Regardless of your view of the subject, adult material is a major part of furry
> fandom. Wishing that the Evil Pervert Furs would just be quite and go away will
> do nothing.
>
No, but downplaying it and promoting the non-spooge material more heavily
will.
>
> Dwelling on the Treehouse and the Portal Of Evil will also do nothing, except
> reinforce a massively distorted view of furry fandom.
>
No, it continues to keep it in the light. Ignoring it does not make it go
away, but it does suggest implicit approval. The idea that it only reinforces the
negative view is just more "shooting the messenger" rhetoric.
>
Nebulous
> Yeah, there are some whose standard of behaviour consists of "Do what
thou
> wilt" minus the "An' it harm none" part. Those sorts are usually the
ones who
> most vigorously fight any attempt to establish proper rules of conduct.
It's
> gotten so bad that conventions have to write explicit rules of conduct
into
> their program guides because some people can't be trusted to behave
> themselves.
>
because some people can't be trusted to behave themselves?
--
Nebulous Rikulau
My furcode
FFCs4a A- C* D H+ M- P++ R+ T+++ W Z+ Sm RLRB/AT a+ cn++ d-- e+ f h+ i+ j+
p+ sm-
"I have studied many philosophers and many cats. The wisdom of cats is
infinitely superior."
---Hippolyte Taine
Chuck Melville
Chuck Melville wrote:
> Get another people to side
> with you and you control the consensus.
>
Sorry; little brain-fart there. That should read: "Get -enough- people to side
Allen Kitchen
Chuck Melville wrote:
>
> Al Goldman wrote:
>
> > No one has a consensus on what is proper furry behavior.
> >
>
> That's not true. Poll a large number of furry fans for their opinions and
> whatever the majority agrees on is your consensus.
Ask 12 furrys, and you'll get 29 different answers :)
Allen Kitchen (shockwave, not delving into the fray anymore.)
http://www.blkbox.com/~osprey/
Leslie_R
I hear a lot more anti-furry-this and
> anti-furry-that coming from a few big mouths within the fandom than from
> the rest of the world in general. Which is darned interesting,
> considering how much larger the world in general is than the fandom.
>
> -Rust
fetishes which some say are giving furry a bad rap are being given such
attention when they are likely as big if not bigger out in ther world at
large
<useless analogy>
take a fundamentalist conservative, a radical liberal, and a blatent
BDSM fetishist and scatter them out randomly in the same 20-story office
bulding and see what happens.. now for our next trick, put them all in
the same elevator and compare the difference
</useless analogy>
-Leslie
> --
> We are the instruments of creation - what we dream, is.
>
> Remove ".netspam" from my address to reply
--
"Now we are so happy, we do the Dance of Joy!"
-Balki Bartokamouse
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
xyd...@BLOWmy-dejaNOZZLE.com> writes:
> Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
> > Right, not even that much vaunted "Tolerance" that some people
> > insist all furry fans have, by nature of being furries. Far from
> > being universal, it seems more to be tolerance for the Outre', and
> > none for the more normal.
>
> Allow me to be the first one to poke a hole in that generalization
> by stating that I think Brenda DiAntonis is cool. Actually, I know
> quite a few Christian folks out there in furry fandom that are cool.
> I suppose it's probably a shock to you that I think they're cool
> even though I'm not a Christian myself. I mean, you don't see me
> flaming G. Raymond Eddy, do you? No, of course not.
>
> But then, I believe in that "much vaunted" tolerance thang ya seem to
> like railing against. -:)
It's all about you, isn't it?
Of course you think Brenda is cool, because she IS cool. It's hardly
something one can have a different opinion about unless one were totally
oblivious to the facts.
But just because YOU happen to have a better handle on tolerance does not
disprove the point that it is NOT a universal value among furries. The fact
that there are others who are not as tolerant, or indeed, the fact that here
in this post you are painting yourself as an EXCEPTION, proves my point.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
allan...@aol.comNARF (Al Goldman) writes:
> The place for regulations were things can be regulated - zines
> and conventions, for example. The idea of regulations for the
> Internet, where anybody can do anything with no obiglation to follow
> rules is where the fantasy of a regulated fandom fails.
True. There are no regulations, but there ARE social forces. Look what
happened with "Sheath" when we all got pretty sick of his shit and wouldn't
play with him the way he wanted. He left in a huff. If he comes back,
chances are his behavior may have improved. Sure, usenet is unregulated, but
it's still full of PEOPLE. And people form social orders whereever they are,
and social orders have ways of making people fall into line.
> >> No one could enforce any standard we would develop.
> >Here's a question for you. CAN a subculture establish rules for
> >behavior and methods of enforcing them? Why can't Furry?
>
> This paragraph parses kind of funny - do you know a fandom with
> an extensive adult component that enforces such rules?
Hard to say, do you know just how much SLASH fiction there is? There may be
quite a lot of it, but Trek fans are a lot more descreet about it.
> As to your question, only on a case-by-case basis. When someone is
> in charge, yes - we've seen a sharp rise in public conduct at
> furry conventions as a response to the excesses of ConFurence 8. On
> the unregulated Internet and in the legal activities of consenting
> adults, no. No matter how much it would benefit the fandom some
> things cannot be controled - we don't have the tools or the
> moral authority.
We always have the tools. Regardless of the subculture, there is a social
order, and the lowest rung on that social order is "Outcast". And Fury Fandom
is OUR community, which gives us all the moral authority to impose the
majority will with regard to what happens in that community. (Or in some
cases, the plurality will against a sea of Apathy).
This happens everywhere there are human beings involved.
Al Goldman
>>allan...@aol.comNARF (Al Goldman) writes:
>> No one's religious or personal values are valid for the entire body
>> of furry fandom.
>Right, not even that much vaunted "Tolerance" that some people insist all
>furry fans have, by nature of being furries. Far from being universal, it
>seems more to be tolerance for the Outre', and none for the more normal.
There have been cases of more "normal" furries being harassed, such as the
Christian Furry Fellowship. But I advocate tolerance not for unlimited personal
freedom but as a way to accept the fact that some things can not and will not
be removed from the fandom.
I'd love to be intolerant. There's a bunch of people I'd love to see off the
Internet or out of furry fandom. But I’m just as helpless as the BF's in
forcing my will on the furry community.
>Yeah, there are some whose standard of behaviour consists of "Do what thou
>wilt" minus the "An' it harm none" part. Those sorts are usually the ones
>who most vigorously fight any attempt to establish proper rules of conduct.
It's
>gotten so bad that conventions have to write explicit rules of conduct into
>their program guides because some people can't be trusted to behave
>themselves.
The place for regulations were things can be regulated - zines and conventions,
for example. The idea of regulations for the Internet, where anybody can do
anything with no obiglation to follow rules is where the fantasy of a regulated
fandom fails.
>> No one could enforce any standard we would develop.
>Here's a question for you. CAN a subculture establish rules for behavior and
>methods of enforcing them? Why can't Furry?
This paragraph parses kind of funny - do you know a fandom with an extensive
adult component that enforces such rules?
As to your question, only on a case-by-case basis. When someone is in charge,
yes - we've seen a sharp rise in public conduct at furry conventions as a
response to the excesses of ConFurence 8. On the unregulated Internet and in
the legal activities of consenting adults, no. No matter how much it would
benefit the fandom some things cannot be controled - we don't have the tools or
the moral authority.
>Richard Chandler
Watts Martin
>> to paraphrase Captain Packrat earlier "you don't like the image it gives
>> the fandom? encourage people to stop pointing at it and yelling"
>
If the messenger is "Portal of Evil," I'd have to say blaming it is a
perfectly reasonable response. I don't think well of websites whose purpose
in life is to encourage the mocking of others. I don't care how weird-ass,
lame or outright indefensible what they're mocking is. Sites like that not
only contribute nothing of value, they promote the idea that incivility and
discourteousness is cool and funny. We need more courtesy, not less
(particularly, in my opinion, in furrydom).
I understand Stuka's point of view and I'm largely sympathetic to it, but the
reality is that Xydexx is absolutely correct--complaining about it doesn't do
jack, only action does. There is no way to regulate the behavior of people
who want to identify themselves with your hobby. If you don't control the
venue they're in, you can't even stop them from identifying themselves with
your hobby. All you can do is tell anyone who will listen, "I'm not with
them." You can't make everyone understand that they should keep The Weird
Stuff away from newbies. You can censure, but you can't censor. Even if you
want to--which you damn well shouldn't--you just can't.
So stop preaching, already, and start doing. Start more things like Yerf! if
you want. Start Portals of Good. Promote the stuff that you think is good
about furry art, writing, animation and the like. Get involved with furry
conventions so you have input into their direction. Promote and contribute
to Fuzzy Logic, and maybe start and promote other non-fiction publications-
-reviews, articles, letter columns or forums. (The sorts of fanzines that
mainstream sf fandom has had for decades.) And encourage CRITICAL thinking,
as distinct from CYNICAL thinking. Right now in the fandom too much of the
latter is being passed off as the former.
--
Watts Martin <mi...@solluna.org>
http://www.ranea.org/watts/
Al Goldman
>>Al Goldman wrote:
>> No one has a consensus on what is proper furry behavior.
> That's not true. Poll a large number of furry fans for their opinions
>and whatever the majority agrees on is your consensus. Get another people to
>side with you and you control the consensus.
And if I disagree with the valid or invalid consensus there is still nothing
you can do to make me conform.
I should clarify my original point. The consensus exists where it should - when
some group of furries is actually in charge of something and has the authority,
like a zine or a convention.
>> No one could enforce any standard we would develop.
> Forcibly, no. But influentially, sure; it could be done.
You could find support for just about any weird aspect of the fandom. From pure
freedom of speech advocates to fellow weirdoes. Ten happy fans will outweigh
500 rational objections.
>> Regardless of your view of the subject, adult material is a major part of
furry
>> fandom. Wishing that the Evil Pervert Furs would just be quite and go away
will
>> do nothing.
> No, but downplaying it and promoting the non-spooge material more heavily
will.
Correct!
>> Dwelling on the Treehouse and the Portal Of Evil will also do nothing,
except
>> reinforce a massively distorted view of furry fandom.
> No, it continues to keep it in the light. Ignoring it does not make it
>go away, but it does suggest implicit approval. The idea that it only
>reinforces the negative view is just more "shooting the messenger" rhetoric.
Unless something is illegal there is nothing we can do to stop the Treehouse.
People interested in shutting them down can monitor their activities and report
them to the authorities without involving AFF. We have no influence over the
PoE whatsoever, since they’re outside the fandom and hypocrites anyway.
Talking about both topics simply scares the lurkers.
> Chuck Melville
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
> Like you, fer instance? I hear a lot more anti-furry-this and
> anti-furry-that coming from a few big mouths within the fandom than from
> the rest of the world in general. Which is darned interesting,
> considering how much larger the world in general is than the fandom.
Rust, this is very close to flaming. Kindly keep the ad hominem
out of the discussion. You can discuss this without name-calling.
StukaFox
Weston Firerunner
Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
> Here's a question for you. CAN a subculture establish rules for behavior and
> methods of enforcing them? Why can't Furry?
I don't think I've seen one that could create a set of rules for
behavior outside the constraints of a particular place, such as a
convention, or a particular artistic venue, such as a fanzine. I'm not
saying that no subculture can create such rules, but from my limited
experience, I've yet to see one.
Within the Goth subculture (pre-Manson), I have seen so many different
concepts of what is 'Goth' that I decided that Goth is what one wants it
to be. No one can tell you different, and if they do, you could easily
ignore them and be on with your life, beleiving exactly what you want it
to be. Perception creates a great deal of reality, in most people's
lives, it seems. Is Goth about kids squicking as many 'mundane' people
as they can? Is it about protest against 'The Establishment'? Is it
about wearing black and white and red?
What is amusing is that I've run into various folks who try and define
Goth and force others to accept that definition. Others have tried to
set up little 'communes' where like-minded Goths could live peacefully
sheltered from the bitter scorn and resentment outside. Sound familiar?
;) These are actual perceptions and realizations I had well before I
learned of Furry politics and infighting.
I think that in the end, everyone will live how they want to live, play
how they want to play, think how they want to think, etc.. and the world
will continue turning.
I don't claim to want to get into this current debate, but I thought I
would share my little bit with the world who watches a.f.f. No offense
is intended. I don't claim to know anything more than I have
experienced, and I am not singling anyone out.
- Weston Firerunner
http://www.furnation.com/firerunner/
Post Script: I wrote a 'rant' on both Furry and Goth on my homepage if
anyone is remotely interested. I don't claim to associate with what is
called 'Goth' these days, and I doubt that my concept of the subculture
jives with what most other members of that subculture thought of it.
Xydexx Squeakypony
> It's all about you, isn't it?
Yeah, it's all about me. Except when it's about you.
> Of course you think Brenda is cool, because she IS cool.
Oh, YEAH? Well, I think Brenda is COOL. So THERE!
I'm so glad we can finally agree on something. -:)
> But just because YOU happen to have a better handle on tolerance
> does not disprove the point that it is NOT a universal value among
> furries.
Nope, it doesn't. Of course, I never intended to prove tolerance was a
universal value in the fandom, so it's a moot point.
Tolerance is a good thing to have, yes, but it's certainly not practiced
by everyone. Heck, I'll be first to admit there's quite a few folks in
the fandom who say the word "tolerance" with a sneer, like it's a Bad
Thing or something.
Not mentioning any names, of course.
--
_________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony http://www.xydexx.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<mi...@solluna.remove-bogus.org> wrote:
>If the messenger is "Portal of Evil," I'd have to say blaming it is a
>perfectly reasonable response. I don't think well of websites whose purpose
>in life is to encourage the mocking of others.
You know I've been thinking, perhaps this mocking by the "Portal of
Evil" folks is a good thing. I mean how do you tell that you have
made it big in the music industry? When Weard Al yankovic sends up
your soung. How to you know you have a big ass movie on your hands?
When Mad does a hit and run on it.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Kai
news:8ml810$igd$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
>
> If the messenger is "Portal of Evil," I'd have to say blaming it is a
> perfectly reasonable response.
A reasonable response, but probably not the most productive. Blaming one
website for an image problem is hardly rational. By the same token, using
said website to form one's opinion of another group is probably even more
shallow.
The biggest problem I have with the anti-Portal argument is that it wouldn't
even be worthy of our attention if there weren't furry sites on it. You can
look at it and laugh right along with them, until your group is part of the
joke, and all of the sudden it's like "Hey, waitaminute..."
If you're going to argue against Portal, do it for the following reasons:
a) it's not funny, b) it's got a big link to UGO right at the top, c) it's
ugly, and d) it's not funny. It's perfectly possible to be humorous without
doing so at the expense of others.
So anyway, I repeat what's already been agreed on for the most part: if you
want something to change, shut up and do it.
Leslie_R
>
>
> If you're going to argue against Portal, do it for the following reasons:
> a) it's not funny, b) it's got a big link to UGO right at the top, c) it's
> ugly, and d) it's not funny. It's perfectly possible to be humorous without
> doing so at the expense of others.
some way, but we can laugh at their misfortune because it is usually
explicitly implied that it is in fact all in fun "An Acrobat walks into
the doctor's office with a bananna up his butt" now putting aside how
painfull and uncomfortable having a piece of fruit jammed up the rectal
orafice may be, thoughts of "bananna splits" in rude context will still
grab a giggle here and there because this is quite obviously a joke,
"will you stop bobbing your head on my wang long enough for me to tell
you what a worthless sack of homo dog-vomit you are?" however, is
not... and no matter how many individuals laugh out loud at this it
still can't be excused as "just a joke"
-Leslie
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
> True. There are no regulations, but there ARE social forces. Look what
> happened with "Sheath" when we all got pretty sick of his shit and wouldn't
> play with him the way he wanted. He left in a huff. If he comes back,
> chances are his behavior may have improved. Sure, usenet is unregulated, but
> it's still full of PEOPLE. And people form social orders whereever they are,
> and social orders have ways of making people fall into line.
That was a really, REALLY good example and one I'm going to archive
as it neatly shows what I've been trying to say. Thanks, Richard!
StukaFox
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
> So anyway, I repeat what's already been agreed on for the most part: if you
> want something to change, shut up and do it.
I'm going to go ahead and address this point, as it gets brought
up over and over . . .
I AM trying to change it by fostering an open discussion about this
issue, and to get the input of all different sides. Further, I'm
trying to change things by changing minds through reasoned discussion.
Unless people begin to see beyond the walls of this hobby and see how
their own actions have ramifications that may harm the hobby, and
to quit thinking of furry as some kind of protected vaccuum.
I'm trying to change hearts and minds. Some I'll reach, most I won't,
but I am doing something constructive, even if a number of people can't
understand it as such.
StukaFox
gbres...@my-deja.com
cp...@zipcon.com wrote:
>
>
> Al Goldman wrote:
>
> > No one has a consensus on what is proper furry behavior.
> >
>
> That's not true. Poll a large number of furry fans for their
opinions and
> whatever the majority agrees on is your consensus.
Chuck, get down your dictionary. Consensus means UNAMINITY. Not
majority. You must have UNANIMOUS agreement to have consensus.
--
--Gene
"Everybody wants to be a cat, 'cause a cat's the only cat who knows
where it's at."
--O'Malley the alley cat, The Aristocats.
gbres...@my-deja.com
allan...@aol.comNARF (Al Goldman) wrote:
> People with strong religious beliefs do manage to remain in furry
> fandom
> without dwelling on the objectionable aspects of the fandom. It's
> called
> "tolerance" - learn it, live it. Not because you believe in unlimited
> personal
> freedom but because your experinces in furry fandom will be enhanced
> when you
> stop wasting time fighting unwinable battles.
>
> Maybe some Christian furries could provide some insight on the topic
> of
> tolerance, and how they deal with legal but objectional material.
>
> No furry closets.
So non-Christian religious furries aren't allowed to have an opinion?
I'm not Christian. I was raised in a Christian tradion. Among my best
friends is an Episcopal priest. When I did call myself a Christian my
religious philosophy demanded tolerance. And not just tolerance,
acceptance. Part of the theology of the church I was raised in was that
it is the responsibility of each individual to interpret god's law. No
one of us has a right to impose that interpretation on another.
I continue to believe in that now that I'm a taoist. And a
Jeffersonian.
What I find most objectionable in furry fandom is the continuing
attempts by various, oh factions isn't even the right word, it seems to
be a bunch of isolated crackpots, really, to do things like "impose
standards of behavior" or "clean up the fandom's image."
If you're living in a free society, you're going to be seeing and
hearing "objectionable" things. And what's objectionable to you may be
a sacrament to someone else. There are many times when I see a book or
a movie or a painting or something and I think, "Man, I wish they
hadn't done that." But I do not want to live in a society or a
subculture where someone has the authority to enforce those sorts of
rules.
It's not enough to say that "we can't change it so let's move along."
Take the next step and admit that you have to grant other people the
right to think and read and write and look at and draw what they want
in order to preserve your own right to do those things.
Brian Sutton
Brian, who is cool with rules for cons and labling products adults only.
Eureka #2 will be on the stands soon, for a preview check the web site.
Brian Sutton
" Because I REALLY care about your happiness..."
Visit my website @ http://members.xoom.com/HJGpage/
for deals on Furry art & comics
Al Goldman
>So non-Christian religious furries aren't allowed to have an opinion?
The only reason I mentioned Christians is that there are enough of them in the
fandom that they can have different views on the issue of tolerance. How you
came to that conclusion is beyond me, since I've been advocating tolerance for
years
>It's not enough to say that "we can't change it so let's move along."
>Take the next step and admit that you have to grant other people the
>right to think and read and write and look at and draw what they want
>in order to preserve your own right to do those things.
Which is what I've been saying.
>Gene
Al Goldman
(Richard Chandler - WA Resident) writes:
>True. There are no regulations, but there ARE social forces. Look what
>happened with "Sheath" when we all got pretty sick of his shit and wouldn't
>play with him the way he wanted. He left in a huff. If he comes back,
>chances are his behavior may have improved. Sure, usenet is unregulated, but
>it's still full of PEOPLE. And people form social orders whereever they are,
>and social orders have ways of making people fall into line.
This is the way AFF has been run for years, Are you happy with the current
situation on AFF?
If Sheath had been a little more discreet, or a little more popular, or a well
known artist would anybody have tried to shout him down?
Driving him off AFF would have done nothing if he had offensive artwork on the
web or other negative influences on the fandom.
I dealt with him by showing tolerance and ignoring him. Did the people who
shouted him down show more, or less, concern for AFF and furry fandom?
All of are current methods of dealing with inapropprate behavour are
subjective, and we don't have the ability to write and enforce solid rules on
furry conduct.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<mau...@kendra.com> wrote:
>In article <20000806151401...@nso-cq.aol.com>,
>allan...@aol.comNARF (Al Goldman) writes:
>> No one's religious or personal values are valid for the entire body
>> of furry fandom.
>
>Right, not even that much vaunted "Tolerance" that some people insist all
>furry fans have, by nature of being furries. Far from being universal, it
>seems more to be tolerance for the Outre', and none for the more
>normal.
Thats always a problem when your trying to promote tolerance.
Anouther related problem is how do you tolorate people who are
intolerant?
[...]
>> No one has a consensus on what is proper furry behavior.
>
>Yeah, there are some whose standard of behaviour consists of "Do what thou
>wilt" minus the "An' it harm none" part.
There is always the question "What is harm?", for example if there is
some sort of uberprude who beleaves that he/she is harmed by the
presence of porn in the same hotel as them[1]. Does this mean we
should restrict oureselfs to the will of the most restrictive?
[1] I've met people like this so its not a totally unlikely.
Teresa Warner
Well said.
-CC (tw)
Watts Martin wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Aug 2000 00:17:16 -0500, Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
> >> to paraphrase Captain Packrat earlier "you don't like the image it gives
> >> the fandom? encourage people to stop pointing at it and yelling"
> >
> >Yet another attempt to blame the messenger...
>
> If the messenger is "Portal of Evil," I'd have to say blaming it is a
> perfectly reasonable response. I don't think well of websites whose purpose
Chuck Melville
gbres...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > No one has a consensus on what is proper furry behavior.
> > >
> >
> > That's not true. Poll a large number of furry fans for their
> opinions and
> > whatever the majority agrees on is your consensus.
>
> Chuck, get down your dictionary. Consensus means UNAMINITY. Not
> majority. You must have UNANIMOUS agreement to have consensus.
>
Hmm... Webster's Home & Office Desk Reference (1997) says it's an
agreement of opinion, or a collective agreement. And Webster's New
School & Office (1960) says it's a general agreement or accord... all of
which as I thought it meant. Where th' heck are you getting "unanimity"
from, Gene!?
Hangdog
You have hit my biggest gripe with the public face of the "Burned Fur"
> movement. (You may or may not identify yourself with them, but you're
> clearly touching on the concerns that they're also concerned with.) The kind
> of "discussion" they foster is the kind of discussion that Rush Limbaugh
> fosters. Regardless of what Limbaugh may say when groups like FAIR call him
> on the carpet, the point of his show is to let his fans feel good as those
> crazy liberals are held up to be despised and ridiculed. He isn't an
> activist--he's a commentator who knows that he can keep an audience going
> indefinitely by getting half of them to clap and whistle and half of them to
> turn purple with rage. To put it baldly, if he successfully promoted change,
> he'd be out of a job.
So agitators do not contribute to social change? Nobody seems to have told
ACT-UP.
The point of Burned Fur is to provide an organized voice for like-minded
individuals. What this has to do with Rush Limbaugh I don't know, except perhaps
that the analogy allows you to link us with a name most people in this fandom
reflexively hate--a neat sophistical trick, if rather obvious.
Our opinions are stated in the Manifesto. We're here, we're not going away, we
won't be silenced, and you can bet we won't be shouted down.
Sorry if that bothers you.
--Hangdog, Burned Fur
Elynne
> I believe, as a whole, we're better than this. God, I hope we are,
> anyway.
"We?"
First, I have to say that I think you're right about some things,
including the overwhelming proportion of "erotic art" in furry fandom.
But I still question whether the regular cycle of flamewars on this
newsgroup helps anything, especially since the people who get involved
with them invariably entrench themselves deeper into their respective
sides of the argument - or drop out altogether, with their pre-existing
opinions intact. You are one of the few people posting to this group who
has made any signifigant change in tactics that I've seen - actually,
you're the *only* person I can think of off the top of my head, and I
respect you for that, a lot.
I'll even take a step further, and say that the whole Burned Fur thing did
appear to help improve furry fandom's image. In the immediate aftermath
of the BF explosion, there was a second explosion of quality art,
"squeeky-clean" cons, and the like. I have no idea if anything changed on
the MUCKs, those aren't my turf.
I can't speak for everybody about why this happened. I can't speak for
anybody but myself. My personal decisions about how I approach and deal
with furry fandom have been set for a long time, and the regular cycle of
flamewars don't change my decisions - they entrench them, if anything.
Hmph. Never mind, I have no direction. I've been watching this go on for
years (heh), and I still can't think of anything worthwhile to say. When
the flames start up again, I just shrug, roll my eyes, and wait for it to
blow over, because - what else can I do?
I guess that's part of the reason for this post... what can *I* do?
Really? I've made my personal decisions about how I'm going to conduct
myself; I try to communicate with others, but there are loads of people
out there who can't get a point through their heads even with the
assistance of a Makita power drill, and I don't have the patience to try
to gently convince them of the error of their ways - and I don't have the
blood pressure or emotional commitment to crusade against them.
Going back to the bit I quoted... I think that "we" *are* better than
that. *Much* better. "We" are veritable saints of decorum, rationality,
restraint, and compromise. "We" show that "we" are capable of some very
wonderful things. "We" are gentle, understanding, and wise, while still
retaining "our" strong sense of ethics.
... for sufficient values of "us." Who "we" are depends on who is
included in the set of "us." If you include the fringe looneys in "us,"
"we" will have a much tougher time raising the average.
I can't think of an easy solution. Too much spooge "hurts the fandom."
Too much wierd, agressively non-normal activity "hurts the fandom." Too
much arguing, flaming, complaining, name-calling, and bitter negativity
"hurts the fandom" - and I can supply examples of that, too. How many
wingnuts can dance on the topic of a newsgroup?
Ah, screw it.
-- Elynne, waxing loquatious
Watts Martin
<FromTheDes...@stukafox.com> wrote:
> I AM trying to change it by fostering an open discussion about this
> issue, and to get the input of all different sides. Further, I'm
> trying to change things by changing minds through reasoned discussion.
> Unless people begin to see beyond the walls of this hobby and see how
> their own actions have ramifications that may harm the hobby, and
> to quit thinking of furry as some kind of protected vaccuum.
Okay. Then stop for a moment.
You have hit my biggest gripe with the public face of the "Burned Fur"
movement. (You may or may not identify yourself with them, but you're
clearly touching on the concerns that they're also concerned with.) The kind
of "discussion" they foster is the kind of discussion that Rush Limbaugh
fosters. Regardless of what Limbaugh may say when groups like FAIR call him
on the carpet, the point of his show is to let his fans feel good as those
crazy liberals are held up to be despised and ridiculed. He isn't an
activist--he's a commentator who knows that he can keep an audience going
indefinitely by getting half of them to clap and whistle and half of them to
turn purple with rage. To put it baldly, if he successfully promoted change,
he'd be out of a job.
Obviously, Burned Furs don't have a monetary interest in keeping rage going,
and it'd be a little too cynical even for me to suggest that most of them
want to keep that level of confrontation going just for the egoboo. but I
think too many of them have enjoyed the fight for the fight's sake. Let's
face it, it's FUN to go around pissing people off, especially if you think
you're in the right. If you see yourself as part of the oppressed minority
of right-thinking individuals, you SHOULD be getting a lot of people honked
off at you, shouldn't you?
Well... not if you're interested in change, you don't.
It's pretty easy to make fun of Julia Butterfly, the college student who
spent over a year in a tree to bring attention to the danger the timber
industry is posing to old-growth forests. Quite frankly, she comes across as
froot-loop. But, in some objective senses, she succeeded--in addition to the
symbolic victory of saving "her" tree, she drew national attention for that
issue, and the preservation movement in northern California has been
strengthened because of that. If I had a choice between spending a couple
hours with her or spending five minutes with dittoheads cracking jokes about
tree-huggers? Froot-loops ahoy, me mate.
Discussion is all well and good, but ultimately discussions about what other
people should and shouldn't do isn't useful. There's not that many people in
this discussion, anyway. All we can establish is what I can do, and what you
can do. Then we can do it.
There's another topic line I could get into based on your observation that
furry fandom is, to you, "pretty much FurryMUCK"... but that's for another
message. :)
gbres...@my-deja.com
cp...@zipcon.com wrote:
> > Chuck, get down your dictionary. Consensus means UNAMINITY. Not
> > majority. You must have UNANIMOUS agreement to have consensus.
> >
>
> Hmm... Webster's Home & Office Desk Reference (1997) says it's an
> agreement of opinion, or a collective agreement. And Webster's New
> School & Office (1960) says it's a general agreement or accord... all
of
> which as I thought it meant. Where th' heck are you getting
"unanimity"
> from, Gene!?
Merriam Websters Tenth Collegiate
The Oxford Dictionary of American English
Dorset & Barber's New Universal Unabridged.
All list it as the first definition. Legally, this is also the
definition, this is why in the by-laws we used the phrase very
carefully.
I'm sorry you didn't realize that.
Watts Martin
>> Dwelling on the Treehouse and the Portal Of Evil will also do nothing,
>> except reinforce a massively distorted view of furry fandom.
> No, it continues to keep it in the light. Ignoring it does not make it go
> away, but it does suggest implicit approval. The idea that it only
> reinforces the negative view is just more "shooting the messenger"
> rhetoric.
Suppose you're a science fiction fan confronted with a mainstream lit 'snob'
who believes all that genre stuff is action-driven, character-free escapism.
You'd like to convince him otherwise. Do you "shine the light" on fluffy
works by Piers Anthony, Jack Chalker, Alan Dean Foster and talk about how
escapist and non-representative of the genre it is? Do you denigrate all the
TV, movie and RPG tie-ins to show him how much you agree with him?
No, of course not. Either he's seen all that before and it's why he's
skeptical, or he's seen very little of it and you're predisposing him to
think poorly of the genre by focusing on the dreck.
What you do is get the stuff that you think WILL convince him--ideally stuff
that's already critically-acclaimed, but certainly stuff that's very high
quality, that shows what can really be done with the genre.
These threads and its predecessors over the last, oh, centuries, have set up
a false dichotomy. There is not a binary opposition between ignoring what
you think gives the fandom a "bad image" and dwelling on it. The argument
continually devolves into "you can't ignore it" versus "you can't just harp
on it" because *both sides are correct.* Neither approach is actually an
approach at all.
As most people seem to agree, there's always going to be things being
produced in the fandom that will make you wince, whoever you are; there's no
point in either pretending it doesn't exist or in trying to convince the
people producing things you don't like to stop. (If they didn't like to
produce it, they wouldn't.)
I think of furries as a superset of funny animals which includes telling
adult stories, but "adult" can be the sense of SNOW FALLING ON CEDARS, not
just DEBBIE DOES DALLAS. When I'm introducing people to what the fandom is
about, that's pretty much what I tell them--and I look for what I think are
good examples of the former, not the latter. If people have been exposed to
seedier things already, I simply say, "Well, there's all sorts of stuff out
there, including things like that. But that's not really a good example of
what the fandom creates--*this* is," and lead them away from the dreck.
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
> The kind of "discussion" they foster is the kind of discussion that
> Rush Limbaugh fosters.
The fundamental difference being, in this case, that everyone's
gotten a say, ideas and opinions have been exchanged in a usually-
civil and pretty intelligent fashion, and the minds that aren't going
to be changed won't be and those that will, will be. In the end,
everyone had their say and maybe learned a little bit about the
other's viewpoint, as I know I have.
Your insinuation that I'm doing this as some kind of extended troll
is fairly insulting, however. I don't believe you meant this, but
you might want to re-read what you wrote and see how it could be
read that way.
StukaFox
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
>> So stop preaching, already, and start doing.
Watts,
This is a fundamental cop-out; just another version of blame the
messanger. Do you take up action for every single thing you find
wrong or offensive? No offense, my friend, but this is a Usenet
group, and the purpose of the Usenet is discussion, which is
what we're doing right now. I've taken the actions I felt were
necessary and justified, but I'm here to discuss what I view as
a problem and to hear the input of others. I'm dismayed, to say the
least, that even the suggestion that people take responsibility for
their own actions, and that they consider the impact of their actions
on their fellow hobbiests, has been viewed as the sack of the Library
at Alexandria, the Mcarthy era, and the Salem Witchtrials, all rolled
into one.
I believe, as a whole, we're better than this. God, I hope we are,
anyway.
StukaFox
Xydexx Squeakypony
> We're here, we're not going away, we won't be
> silenced, and you can bet we won't be shouted
> down.
For a minute there ya almost sounded like some kinda revolutionary
leader or something. But that'd be silly, right? I mean, if you really
wanted to improve the fandom's image, it'd be silly of you to be
fighting against other folks who wanted to improve the fandom's image,
wouldn't it?
So why do you keep doing it, I wonder?
I dunno, maybe you just like to complain. I kinda figure it's only a
matter of time before you and the few remaining Burned Furs are going to
get tired of complaining and finally decide to play nice with your
fellow furry fans. C'mon, give it a try. Why not? It's bound to
happen sooner or later, because however much you claim to despise us...
...deep down, you know we're right. -;)
--
_________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony, Fun-To-Be-With Fur
"If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for
who we really are."---Jean-Luc Picard, Star Trek
Rust
> Our opinions are stated in the Manifesto. We're here, we're not going away, we
> won't be silenced, and you can bet we won't be shouted down.
Ditto!
-Rust
--
We are the instruments of creation - what we dream, is.
Remove ".netspam" from my address to reply
Rust
>
> > Watts Martin wrote:
>
> >> So stop preaching, already, and start doing.
>
> Watts,
>
> This is a fundamental cop-out; just another version of blame the
> messanger.
And thus ends today's English lesson on "irony". Class dismissed.
Rust
> > anyway.
>
Glossary of common opinion-based mistranslations:
"We": I
"Bad" (object): Different, personally non-prefered
"Bad"(person): Non-conformist
To be fair:
"Nazi": Intellectual superior
"Fascist": See "Nazi"*
*: Subject to responsible and accurate use.
Rust
> Your insinuation that I'm doing this as some kind of extended troll
> is fairly insulting, however. I don't believe you meant this, but
> you might want to re-read what you wrote and see how it could be
> read that way.
For what it's worth, you don't smell like a troll. You just have this
concept of your personal furry Utopia which you want others to abide by,
and refuse to just let people do things in their own way while you do
your own thing in yours.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
xyd...@BLOWmy-dejaNOZZLE.com> writes:
> it'd be silly of you to be fighting against other folks who wanted to
> improve the fandom's image, wouldn't it?
Just out of curiosity, which people are that? Can you name individuals (Other
than yourself, because by your conceit, we can always assume you would put
yourself on the list)? Who out there is out to improve the fandom's image,
but is opposed by the Burned Furs?
I suppose the answer depends on how one defines "Improve". Since it's the BFs
we're talking about, shall we use their definition? Something along the lines
of "Working to make the reputation of Furry Fandom less likely to squick the
rest of the world."
The other definition of improve might be: "Making the fandom a safe and
comfortable place for those with unusual paraphilias involving animals and
anthropomorphic objects."
Obviously the BFs are for the first and against the second. If the folks
you're referring to are more in line with the second, that I guess you COULD
say the BFs are against those who really want to improve the fandom, but it
would be astonishingly Clintonian of you.
--
"if Marylin Manson has more of an influence on a kid than the kid's parents
do, then maybe the parents need to look at how they're raising their kids."
-- Charlie Clouser, Keyboardist, Nine Inch Nails.
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
westonfi...@angelfire.REMOVE.com> writes:
> What is amusing is that I've run into various folks who try and
> define Goth and force others to accept that definition. Others have
> tried to set up little 'communes' where like-minded Goths could
> live peacefully sheltered from the bitter scorn and resentment
> outside. Sound familiar?
The interesting thing is that many of these subgroups chose their own names,
like "Perky Goths".
The difference in Furry Fandom is that everyone wants to lay claim on the
Furry name.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
deja.com> writes:
> Tolerance is a good thing to have, yes, but it's certainly not
> practiced by everyone. Heck, I'll be first to admit there's quite a
> few folks in the fandom who say the word "tolerance" with a sneer,
> like it's a Bad Thing or something.
Tolerance is only a bad thing when people misuse the word to mask their own
hypocracy.
I am certainly not hypocritical about Tolerance because I don't claim to be
"Tolerant". There are some things I will not tolerate, and I will not
disguise those feelings.
On the other hand, there are those who wax poetical about how wonderfully
tolerant furry fandom is because it "allows people of all kinds of sexual
orientations to interact freely" (Pronounce this liltingly) who then turn
around and scream about the horrible repressive anti-sex Christian furs and
the evil Repressive people who post art on Yerf.
As I said, "Tolerance" in furry fandom is a MYTH, and anyone who tries to
assert that it is some kind of universal furry value is lying.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> Yes, but what if it was YOU Rich who was the one that got driven out?
Well, you see Brian, the difference is that I make an effort to fit in. Hell,
I make an effort to contribute positively. I also don't try to graft my
unrelated interests on to the hobby. I'm not going to be driven out because,
when it comes to the real root of the fandom, I'm very considerate. On the
other hand, I'm a stauch defender of the hobby against those things that do
not belong there.
Frankly, I can't imagine it being any other way. If it were somewhere where I
didn't feel I belonged, I wouldn't be there anyway.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> This is the way AFF has been run for years, Are you happy with the
> current situation on AFF?
Well, I'd be happier if more people would follow Sheath's wise example and
stop trying to force themselves where they aren't wanted.
> If Sheath had been a little more discreet, or a little more popular, or
> a well known artist would anybody have tried to shout him down?
Well, I have been known to give various popular artists a piece of my mind,
regardless of their popularity. Even those whose art I have personally
praised in the past.
> I dealt with him by showing tolerance and ignoring him. Did the people
> who shouted him down show more, or less, concern for AFF and furry
> fandom?
All it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.
People complain that it's bad enough for furry's image to come to a.f.f and
see all the flame wars. How much worse would it be if we were all sitting
around discussing the joys of bifurcated possum penis?
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> There is always the question "What is harm?", for example if there is
> some sort of uberprude who beleaves that he/she is harmed by the
> presence of porn in the same hotel as them[1]. Does this mean we
> should restrict oureselfs to the will of the most restrictive
Of course not, but there ARE standards of decorum that apply when one is among
members of the general public. What one does in private is only the business
of those involved, but what one does publicly should be done in a way that
satisfies the General Public. (Like Dalton's putting the kiddie magazines on
the bottom shelf and the adult ones way at the top.)
What was that famous line about not doing it in the street where one might
frighten the horses?"
Fender
'snob'
> who believes all that genre stuff is action-driven, character-free
escapism.
> You'd like to convince him otherwise.
*snip for brevity, not because it wasn't nicely done*
>If people have been exposed to
> seedier things already, I simply say, "Well, there's all sorts of stuff
out
> there, including things like that. But that's not really a good example
of
> what the fandom creates--*this* is," and lead them away from the dreck.
>
> --
> Watts Martin <mi...@solluna.org>
> http://www.ranea.org/watts/
>
This post was a pleasure to read--quite literate. The shame is that it,
too, is a value-based argument, because I can tell that you care about the
subject matter. You're doing what everyone is doing: Using your own values
and taste as the baseline for what is and is not "good" within the furry
fandom.
Piers Anthony is fluff? Jack Chalker is fluff? Alan Dean Foster is fluff?
Um... says who? Some mainstream lit snob? What constitutes the "seedier
side" of the furry fandom? Where is the dividing line? By whose lights?
Yours, or mine? Did you ask me before you made the decision?
Please understand that I'm not criticizing or making fun of you. When
dealing with human thought and emotion, we are all the prisoners of our own
minds.
Fender
Chuck Melville
gbres...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Merriam Websters Tenth Collegiate
> The Oxford Dictionary of American English
> Dorset & Barber's New Universal Unabridged.
>
> All list it as the first definition. Legally, this is also the
> definition, this is why in the by-laws we used the phrase very
> carefully.
>
> I'm sorry you didn't realize that.
>
Hmm. Can't argue with your sources, but it strikes me that my usage
is the more commonly used (I've never heard it used to mean Unanimity
before), and, since my sources don't contradict my usage, I think I'll
stand by it.
Xydexx Squeakypony
> Xydexx Squeakypony writes:
> > it'd be silly of you to be fighting against other folks who wanted
> > to improve the fandom's image, wouldn't it?
>
> Just out of curiosity, which people are that?
From the look of things, Burned Fur's "opposition" includes pretty much
everyone else in the fandom at this point. Well, everyone else except
maybe the few folks who are too proud to admit it was never Burned Fur's
goal to improve things. They'll figure it out eventually, I guess. I
mean, there's only so many times Burned Fur can ask for suggestions and
then ignore people who make suggestions before folks figure something's
not quite right.
Is it because the suggestions people made were bad? Nope.
Was it because the suggestions didn't involve writing more hate-filled
manifestos or making nasty little t-shirts? Most definitely.
Really, Rich... if you were as interested in improving the fandom as you
claim to be, I'd think you'd be furious that Burned Fur has just been
using these people.
But enough talk about why the Burned Fur movement failed. Let's cut to
the chase...
> I suppose the answer depends on how one defines "Improve". Since
> it's the BFs we're talking about, shall we use their definition?
> Something along the lines of "Working to make the reputation of
> Furry Fandom less likely to squick the rest of the world."
Saying that's "their" definition seems to be based on the incorrect
assumption that the "opposition" disagrees with it. You seem to think
Burned Fur has some sort of exclusive monopoly on public decorum, and
anyone who disagrees with them is an Evil Spoogemonkey(tm).
While I'm sure it serves your purposes nicely to try to create that
false dichotomy, it's an old trick we've seen enough times in the past
on AFF to recognize when you're using it. The fact remains that it's
still "Us versus Us." No amount of inventing alternate definitions of
"improve" on your part, in a flimsy attempt to discredit the very valid
criticism against Burned Fur, is going to change that.
Feel free to resubmit your comments without the strawman argument next
time.
--
_________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony http://www.xydexx.com
Xydexx Squeakypony
> Tolerance is only a bad thing when people misuse the word to mask
> their own hypocracy.
Psst... hey Rich... just because some people misuse a word doesn't make
the word a bad thing.
"This Rich Chandler has no wheels."
Does that make Rich Chandler _bad_?
Hey, if you don't like tolerance because it means you have to deal with
people like me, just _say_ so. -:)
misusing words = Bad Thing
hypocrisy = Bad Thing
tolerance = Good Thing
Hope this helps.
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
> For what it's worth, you don't smell like a troll. You just have this
> concept of your personal furry Utopia which you want others to abide by,
> and refuse to just let people do things in their own way while you do
> your own thing in yours.
And the way you reached this conclusion was . . . ?
StukaFox
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
> But I still question whether the regular cycle of flamewars on this
> newsgroup helps anything, especially since the people who get involved
> with them invariably entrench themselves deeper into their respective
> sides of the argument - or drop out altogether, with their pre-existing
> opinions intact.
I'm sorry -- you view this as a flamewar?
> I guess that's part of the reason for this post... what can *I* do?
Contribute your voice, which is exactly what you've done. Further,
you've thought about things, even better. You've looked at both
sides, which qualifies as 'wonderful' in my book. IF you've THOUGHT,
if you've weighed both sides, considered results and ramifications,
no matter WHAT conclusions you've come to, you've done something.
> I can't think of an easy solution.
There is no easy solution, but at least ONE person is thinking.
Thanks.
StukaFox
FromTheDes...@stukafox.com
> And thus ends today's English lesson on "irony". Class dismissed.
Rust, I'm sorry but I'm going to killfile you now. I don't want
to, but you seem to have no other purpose than jumping to unwarrented
conclusions, and making increasingly snide and flamey comments.
If you want a better AFF, start with yourself.
StukaFox
Sebastian F. Mix
Dennis Lee Bieber <wulf...@dm.net> writes:
>On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 17:00:22 GMT, gbres...@my-deja.com
>(gbres...@my-deja.com) left the following spoor in alt.fan.furry:
>>
>> Chuck, get down your dictionary. Consensus means UNAMINITY. Not
>> majority. You must have UNANIMOUS agreement to have consensus.
> A quick check on a dictionary gives "a general agreement in
>opinion". Meanings for "general" are "pertaining to the majority",
>"widespread", "usual, ordinary", "taken or viewed as a whole"; "common" (in
>the sense of "shared by many") vs "universal" ("shared by all").
> NOTHING about UNANIMOUS (which would be "universal").
There are crappy dictionaries out there. So what?
Webster's ninth collegiate dictionary, digital edition:
unan-i-mous \yu.-'nan-e-mes\ adj
[L unanimus, fr. unus one + animus mind -- more at ONE, ANIMATE]
(1624)
1: being of one mind: AGREEING
2: formed with or indicating unanimity: having the agreement and
consent of all
- -- unan-i-mous-ly adv
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: latin1
iQCVAwUBOZAvJCNX1Lci7jVBAQE2UAQAxS+bc1LUg4hwW/dunWdq7sSv7OmwkBVN
ThaHtNpNUVLbDgXPzLMdBzfuW8Qnju9TUoNtApu1HVLKH6aCgJl/mvQ0C9g/drgi
56B5SNUa/pdxcZi6reAuzhqV8/rNtZz+3gUAb++A3M7VDbqAeiSSLlMdMVFkkZJv
PxF4+nX7Grw=
=CTtb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
--------------------------------chelImQo'----------------------------------- -
Sebastian F. Mix, Irenenstrasse 21a, D-10317 Berlin, Tel: ++4930 521 1034 /(a\
cha...@cs.tu-berlin.de <-no NeXTmail GCode3.12 GCS/S d?- s+:- a E--- C+(+) \p)/
USX+ P- L- W++ N+++ w--- M- !V PS+++ Y+ PGP+ 5+ X++ R-- b++(+) e+ h+ r-- y*
gbreshears
I don't know how he did it, but I did it by reading your posts
and assuming you mean what you say.
If this isn't true, then you need to learn to communicate better.
--Gene
"Everybody wants to be a cat.
'cause a cat's the only cat who knows where it's at."
-O'Malley the Alley Cat, The Aristocats
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
gbreshears
>In article <8mmr2q$aps$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, gbres...@my-deja.com
writes:
>
>
>>So non-Christian religious furries aren't allowed to have an
opinion?
>
>The only reason I mentioned Christians is that there are enough
>of them in the
>fandom that they can have different views on the issue of
>tolerance. How you
>came to that conclusion is beyond me, since I've been advocating
>tolerance for
>years
I was making a point about your phrasing in that message. I was
not making a claim about your past life or your beliefs. I'm
sorry your take everything so dreadfully seriously that you don't
recognize irony when you read it.
>>It's not enough to say that "we can't change it so let's move
along."
>>Take the next step and admit that you have to grant other
>>people the
>>right to think and read and write and look at and draw what
>>they want
>>in order to preserve your own right to do those things.
>
>Which is what I've been saying.
No. It isn't. It may be what you mean, but it is NOT what you are
saying.
You have been saying that we CAN'T do it.
You have NOT be saying that we SHOULDN'T do it even if we could.
There is a difference. If you do believe that we shouldn't, then
you should start saying so.
gbreshears
Not
>> > majority. You must have UNANIMOUS agreement to have
consensus.
>> >
>>
it's an
>> agreement of opinion, or a collective agreement. And
Webster's New
>> School & Office (1960) says it's a general agreement or
accord... all
>of
>> which as I thought it meant. Where th' heck are you getting
>"unanimity"
>> from, Gene!?
You also may want to look more closely at the definitions of
"general" and "accord."
The word consensus is usually operationally used to mean "such an
overwhelming majority that there is no significant dissent." As I
said, in our legal system "consensus" means that all parties who
have an interest have agreed to accept this solution.
I don't know if Al meant it this way, but I do believe that it is
implicit in his statement that he meant more than a simple
majority. I think the "no significant dissent" is where he was
aiming.
And if so, he's right.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<mau...@kendra.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn8ou8jd....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>,
>dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)) writes:
>> There is always the question "What is harm?", for example if there is
>> some sort of uberprude who beleaves that he/she is harmed by the
>> presence of porn in the same hotel as them[1]. Does this mean we
>> should restrict oureselfs to the will of the most restrictive
>
>Of course not, but there ARE standards of decorum that apply when one
>is among members of the general public. What one does in private is
>only the business of those involved,
But cons are slightly diffrent, the environment isn't the general
public it is for the most part fellow congos.
[...]
>What was that famous line about not doing it in the street where one might
>frighten the horses?"
I beleave it was Queen Victoria.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<mau...@kendra.com> wrote:
[...]
> I'm not going to be driven out because,
>when it comes to the real root of the fandom, I'm very considerate. On the
>other hand, I'm a stauch defender of the hobby against those things that do
>not belong there.
But there are a great number of people who have a very diffrent view
on what the real root is, and what belongs here.
gbreshears
>
>
>gbres...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> Merriam Websters Tenth Collegiate
>> The Oxford Dictionary of American English
>> Dorset & Barber's New Universal Unabridged.
>>
>> All list it as the first definition. Legally, this is also the
>> definition, this is why in the by-laws we used the phrase very
>> carefully.
>>
>> I'm sorry you didn't realize that.
>>
>
> Hmm. Can't argue with your sources, but it strikes me that
>my usage
>is the more commonly used (I've never heard it used to mean
>Unanimity
>before),
Yes you have.
I have used it that way IN YOUR PRESENCE and so has Kristin.
I know lots of people who have only heard "unique" used to mean
"unusual." They aren't right, either.
:)