Reasons against Furry, etc.( Some Observations)
Dwylfin
Peace.
Can't we all get along?
Yes, we can. It is a choice.
Nobody has to be mean. Nobody is supposed to be mean. There is no excuse
. . . not even "everybody is like that sometimes."
"If you can't say somthin' nice, don't say nothing at all." --Thumper.
"What we cannot speak about we must consign to silence." --Wittgenstein.
Scott Alan Malcomson
Dwylfin (dwy...@aol.com) wrote:
: Can't we all get along?
Absolutely. The problem is that a few people don't *want* to.
---LCD
Richard Chandler
In article <4sfikt$f...@globe.indirect.com>,
In fact, you can regularly count on these people to try and sabotage any
attempt to get people to agree on anything. I think if you were to take
the flame that bears my name and divide the pro and con sides up, you'll
find the con side has only a few members, but they make up for it by
posting at least once on every branch.
But you can't blame them, being prominent in the "fandom-as-a-social-
puppy-pile" and zoophile groups, these people feel threatened by anything
that might squeeze them out. It's perfectly natural. It's better for
them to have a Furry Fandom that is at it's own throat and sinking, which
they can be a part of, than a healthy, growing, unified fandom that does
not welcome them.
--
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog... but they can tell right
off the bat if you're an idiot! -- Me
http://www.teleport.com/~mauser/ Gallery Web Page
"Yeah, I've got ADD, wanna make something of.... oooh, cool. Look!"
Dr. Cat
Richard Chandler (mau...@teleport.com) wrote:
: In article <4sfikt$f...@globe.indirect.com>,
: Scott Alan Malcomson <hors...@indirect.com> wrote:
: >Dwylfin (dwy...@aol.com) wrote:
: >: Can't we all get along?
: >
: >Absolutely. The problem is that a few people don't *want* to.
: In fact, you can regularly count on these people to try and sabotage any
: attempt to get people to agree on anything. I think if you were to take
: the flame that bears my name and divide the pro and con sides up, you'll
: find the con side has only a few members, but they make up for it by
: posting at least once on every branch.
Easy to say "the other side doesn't want to get along with MY side" and
fail to observe that maybe your side doesn't want to get along with their
side either. Funny thing, the pro side seems to have only a few
members too, from where I'm sitting. Looks like the "I'm fed up with
those two sides arguing and going to leave the newsgroup" faction
is threatening to grow larger than either, if it hasn't already. Maybe
the "positive suggestions about how to improve things" I mentioned before
would be more soothing than all the "we have to do SOMETHING but I won't
say what I think that is" kinda talk or arguing about 17 different
definitions for the word "part".
Anybody who is voluntarily arguing is not "getting along" no matter which
"side" they are on or "who started it". I think I might join the "taking
a few months off from alt.fan.furry" faction. I'm too silly to leave it
for good, most likely. :X)
********************************************************
* "art is a part of furry fandom." -- Anthony Brewer * Dr. Cat
* "Of course it isn't." -- Richard Bartrop * www.eden.com/~cat
********************************************************
* `When I use a word, it means just what I choose it * If you can read
* to mean -- neither more nor less.' -- Humpty Dumpty * this, you're paying
* from Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll * too much attention!
********************************************************
Dr. Cat
Scott Alan Malcomson (hors...@indirect.com) wrote:
: Actually, it was
[snip]
: that got the whole thing started...
Gee, I thought I said it didn't MATTER how it got started. I already
said in my previous, post, in a part you didn't quote...
> Anybody who is voluntarily arguing is not "getting along" no matter which
> "side" they are on or "who started it".
So here it is again, I already answered what you had to say in reply to
what the last person said. Regardless of HOW things start, if one "side"
wants to argue and the other doesn't, things will die down without going
far. It's only if *both* sides make the choice to sustain the process of
arguing that an ongoing argument happens.
It's sad when someone like Dwylfin comes along and says "Can't we all
just get along" and a couple of people have to totally miss the spirit of
that sentiment by implying that it's "the other side" that's not willing
to get along, and not them. Which is, essentially, insulting the "other
side". And insulting is "not getting along". Fine way to "agree" with
Dwylfin's sentiment.
: So long as people can't control their kneejerk reactions to
[snip]
Replace the portion of your post I snipped there with some totally
different stuff, and it might well be the sort of thing "the other side"
might say about you. Two sides BOTH have kneejerk reactions to each
other in most flamewar issues, and it's not helpful to imply just one
side does, any more than it is to worry about who "started it" in the
latest round.
Me, I have a kneejerk reaction against the idea that having angry public
arguments is a way to do something about problems in the fandom. Knowing
that I have this kneejerk reaction and haven't always managed to restrain
it is why I'm thinking about taking a few months off from this newsgroup
maybe. Well, that and having a big furry project to work on right now. :X)
PeterCat
Recently in alt.fan.furry, c...@eden.com (Dr. Cat) wrote:
>Anybody who is voluntarily arguing is not "getting along" no matter which
>few months off from alt.fan.furry" faction. I'm too silly to leave it for
>good, most likely. :X)
Aww, don't go! I've made the observation in past flame wars, and it seems to
be true here:
The flame posts are in *addition* to a decent amount of non-flame posts on
alt.fan.furry. Maybe a little less, as folks become reticent about posting
or take some time off. But while the flames have been raging, there've been
lots of interesting discussions about:
Running and attending conventions (non-flamish advice)
Old furry animation (Thundercats, Flash Gordon)
How'd you hear about furry?
Kevin and Kell
Mass nouns
Women furfen
A nice poem about otters
These are just the things I've happened to find interesting enough to save;
there are plenty of others, too.
I do have a well-tuned killfile that's hiding about half the posts in a.f.f
from me, but that leaves about 30-50 posts a day to go through. Maybe I'm
missing something by not looking at these flames (such as, learning who's a
jerk), but hey: look at the real world. This week we go from the depths of
despair with the Flight 800 tragedy to the height of joy with the Olympic
ceremony. Life's too short to waste time worrying about pinheads arguing.
--
The Furry InfoPage! http://web.syr.edu/~pjkappes/furry/
pjka...@mailbox.syr.edu (PeterCat) Rhal on FurryMUCK (come cuddle!)
Timothy E. Morgan
In article <165769620204...@gamera.syr.edu>, PeterCat
<pjka...@gamera.syr.edu> writes
>But while the flames have been raging, there've been
>lots of interesting discussions about:
threads, in case I find they're burning-hot...)
As to the rest of the flame wars, I just add names to my twit-filter
when someone gets obnoxious. The way things have been going, it should
be nice and quiet by the end of this month. ;)
--
Timothy E. Morgan
Dennis Lee Bieber
In article <anM5OAAh...@energid.demon.co.uk> "Timothy E. Morgan" <t...@energid.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Kevin and Kell? Which thread? (I'm careful about touching some
> threads, in case I find they're burning-hot...)
>
(which seems to have died out at this point in time)
--
> ============================================================ <
> wulf...@netcom.com | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG <
> D.Bi...@GEnie.com | FurryMUCK and FurToonia <
> ============================================================ <
> PGP key: Finger wulf...@netcom.com <
> Home Page: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/wu/wulfraed/wulfraed.htm <
Brian Henderson
ga...@moose.erie.net (Kenneth Poland) wrote:
>On 18 Jul 1996 08:17:56 GMT, mau...@teleport.com (Richard Chandler) wrote:
>> But you can't blame them, being prominent in the "fandom-as-a-social-
>> puppy-pile" and zoophile groups, these people feel threatened by anything
>> that might squeeze them out. It's perfectly natural. It's better for
>> them to have a Furry Fandom that is at it's own throat and sinking, which
>> they can be a part of, than a healthy, growing, unified fandom that does
>> not welcome them.
>I can't believe this! All of us who are social, spiritual, plushophile,
>fursuiter, collar bearing, zoophile, homo/bisexual, alternative this,
>alternative that, etc., are not welcome in YOUR version of a healthy,
>growing, unified fandom.
I don't know why I even bother, but here goes again. You don't know
how sick I get of repeating myself.
Ken, you, as a human being, are welcome in furry fandom. You're
furry? Great, be in the fandom. What you choose to do outside of
your enjoyment of anthropomorphic animals is *NOT* welcome in the
fandom as it offends many other members of the fandom and generally
gives furry fandom a bad name.
If you are unable to separate the two sides of yourself, even for a
second, then maybe you shouldn't be in the fandom. That is your
choice, not ours. Stop complaining that everyone is trying to force
you out when *YOU* are the one causing your own supposed departure.
<bangs head against keyboard a few times, knowing this will go right
over our resident plushophile's head>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==========================================
+ Brian Henderson == Internet: BHen...@microsys.net ==
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++== Cephus on Furrymuck ==
+ Furry Fan, Babylon 5, == and Furtoonia ==
+ MST3K, Atheist, Skeptic, ==========================================
+ Sliders, RPG Gamer, INWO, == I'm not saying what I'm thinking, so ==
+ Herpetophile, Gargoyles == I don't think anyone agrees with me! ==
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==========================================
+ Alternate Gargoyles Universe Mailing List Archive: ==
+========http://www.microsys.net/personal/bhend/agu.htm/===============
Aris Merquoni
Timothy E. Morgan wrote:
>
> In article <165769620204...@gamera.syr.edu>, PeterCat
> <pjka...@gamera.syr.edu> writes
> >But while the flames have been raging, there've been
> >lots of interesting discussions about:
> threads, in case I find they're burning-hot...)
Or maybe they're lengths of Shadow Square wire that's so thin it'll cut
your hand in two if you touch it...
--
()() / / / (%) ********************* ******
|_________/ \ //\ * Aris TGD * * () *
\___________ \// \\ * B'harne-hater, * * /\ *
|_ \ |\ * Sonic-Fan, * */ \*
_\__\_ | |\ * and Sci-fi reader * *Blue*
_)___|_| |\ * I also luv MK! * ******
/ |_/|\ \ *********************
\_/ \ .
// / \/_/_/_/_ //
|| | \___________/
////
--Yak yak yak. Get a job! (click!)- Hackers
--"What do you want?" "Your blood, your soul, your mind and your body."
"What about my stamp collection? Do I get to keep the First Day Covers?"
-Merlin and Mask, Blood of Amber
Per Aspera
On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Kenneth Poland wrote:
> On 18 Jul 1996 08:17:56 GMT, mau...@teleport.com (Richard Chandler) wrote:
[snip]
> I can't believe this! All of us who are social, spiritual, plushophile,
> fursuiter, collar bearing, zoophile, homo/bisexual, alternative this,
> alternative that, etc., are not welcome in YOUR version of a healthy,
> growing, unified fandom.
I understand you're upset, Kenneth, but I'm sure that this is not how Rich
feels at all. I've known Rich for years. We're not best friends or
anything (having had mucho disagreements in mucho fora), but I'm sure that
he is not against different lifestyles and their practitioners.
I don't presume to speak for Rich, certainly, but I think his feeling is
more that the insistence of being "inyerface" about alternative lifestyles
is what's wrecking the fandom. I'm not sure I agree, personally, that
it's being wrecked, but then, I haven't really been in the mainstream of
*any* fandom or such thing the way that Rich has/is, so I'm not qualified
to comment. My only point is that Rich is not some sort of
whitebread-supremacist, at least, not unless he's changed his tune
recently.....
Huh, Rich?
Per Aspera, Ad Astra * mailto:ada...@io.com * http://www.io.com/~adastra
"A little noozle is all it takes, Sandy!"
Richard Chandler
In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.960722...@xanadu.io.com>,
Per Aspera <lot...@sylvan.com> wrote:
>I understand you're upset, Kenneth, but I'm sure that this is not how Rich
>feels at all. I've known Rich for years. We're not best friends or
>anything (having had mucho disagreements in mucho fora), but I'm sure that
>he is not against different lifestyles and their practitioners.
Water under the bridge, Lothie. :-)
And far from it, WRT to different lifestyles. I may be a little out of
practice myself, but I associate with almost nobody who isn't an alternate
of some variety, if not several.
But, I don't wear one hat that defines all that I am. I have a number of
different hats. When I'm doing furry things, that is my furry hat, and
that's the hat I wear to Confurence. When I'm at Evergreen Field, I'm
wearing my pilot's hat. I talk airplanes, not furries. When I'm at the
PDX Burgermunch with all the rest of the perverts (A few of whom have
furry hats of their own) we're talking whips and chains.
> My only point is that Rich is not some sort of
>whitebread-supremacist, at least, not unless he's changed his tune
>recently.....
>
>Huh, Rich?
No, in fact, I'm somewhat disappointed that according to the Census
Bureau, Portland OR is the whitest city in America. How on earth am I
gonna find that Furry Oriental Leather Goddess of my dreams here? :-)
Per Aspera
On 23 Jul 1996, Richard Chandler wrote:
> And far from it, WRT to different lifestyles. I may be a little out of
> practice myself, but I associate with almost nobody who isn't an alternate
> of some variety, if not several.
Hmmmn. I hardly associate with *anyone* anymore, personally. That sounds
odd, I guess. What I mean is that for the past nine months or so, I've
pretty much stayed close to home, RL-wise, with my spice. Virtually
speaking I've curtailed my activities also. My free time is spent with
spice and children, doing domestic stuff (I need a wife!), drawing (not
enough, never enough), and playing with MIDI arrangements. But yeah, all
the people I'm close to are also alternative in some fashion, even if that
means only being sf or fur fans.
> > My only point is that Rich is not some sort of
> >whitebread-supremacist, at least, not unless he's changed his tune
> >recently.....
> >
> >Huh, Rich?
>
> No, in fact, I'm somewhat disappointed that according to the Census
> Bureau, Portland OR is the whitest city in America. How on earth am I
> gonna find that Furry Oriental Leather Goddess of my dreams here? :-)
Dunno. I haven't seen her anywhere either. ;)
Anyway, this whole "we're furfans and we can do whatever we want" stuff
reminds me of situations at my last place o' work (which shall remain
nameless, since Rich knows where I'm talking about ;) where there were
occasionally arguments between some people who wanted to dress a certain
way and put up certain posters etc. etc. and other people felt that such,
uh, visual stimulation adversely affected their ability to work. I think
it's really the same with furry fandom or any fandom. Sure, you *can* do
whatever you want to do, assuming it's legal. But a point comes where the
line of good taste has been crossed. That line is, of course, not the
same for all people. I'd say that it's in a *much* different place for
the "extremists" than it is for the "moderates".
Who's right? Dunno. I've never been one of those queer people (to
mention another alternative lifestyle) who felt that I had to make my
point by shocking little old ladies in malls. On the other hand, I do
enjoy waking people up to the facts of life. I don't agree with the
people who say that fandom is being wrecked by the "outitude" of its more
outre' members. Nor do I feel that those members should be flaunting
themselves, necessarily. I guess what I think is this: everyone should
consider his audience, and perhaps try to be a little more tolerant of
that audience, whether it be moderate or extreme in nature. Sure,
everybody has rights. But sometimes those rights conflict. When they do,
it's *never* in bad taste to be quieter (either visually or verbally).
Chris Whalen
In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.960723...@xanadu.io.com>,
ada...@io.com says...
>I guess what I think is this: everyone should
>consider his audience, and perhaps try to be a little more tolerant of
>that audience, whether it be moderate or extreme in nature. Sure,
>everybody has rights. But sometimes those rights conflict. When they do,
>it's *never* in bad taste to be quieter (either visually or verbally).
Someone at work once said to me, regarding a coworker I sometimes conflicted
with, "Don't _needlessly_ tick him off." That advice helped me to avoid
unnecessary or accidental fights, and to focus on the real issues. Of course,
it would be nice if the coworker would do the same --
-- Chris
Gary Breuckman
In article <4t1olo$4...@news.erie.net>,
Kenneth Poland <ga...@moose.erie.net> wrote:
>
>Hopefully, this will be resolved by creating something like
>alt.lifestyles.furry. At least noone can tell us the discussions of a furry
>lifestyle are off-topic there. :)
If you do want to form this newsgroup, be sure to start some discussions
about it in alt.config, and keep them going for a while, before creating
the group, and then announce the creation. If you don't there are
"net-god purists" out there who will rmgroup it as fast as you can issue
the creates, and there are sites who do creates manually and will NOT do
so unless it's been discussed properly first.
Personally, I think that fracturing the furry fans by creating more
groups is a bad idea. We need to live with the occasional bigots, the
nonsense posters, the folk(s?) who need to dominate the group by replying
to everything and keeping their quota up... a little flaming is fun too,
properly directed.
--
pu...@netcom.com
Brian Henderson
Per Aspera <ada...@io.com> wrote:
<snip attribution that made it look like Rich actually said what Galen
said>
>I don't presume to speak for Rich, certainly, but I think his feeling is
>more that the insistence of being "inyerface" about alternative lifestyles
>is what's wrecking the fandom. I'm not sure I agree, personally, that
>it's being wrecked, but then, I haven't really been in the mainstream of
>*any* fandom or such thing the way that Rich has/is, so I'm not qualified
>to comment. My only point is that Rich is not some sort of
>whitebread-supremacist, at least, not unless he's changed his tune
>recently.....
My problem, and you are very right here Per, isn't that alternate
lifestyles exist. I an 100% in favor of people living their lives
however they want, am a staunch supporter of homosexual rights, the
whole nine yards. Granted, I think bestiality is a sick perversion
but so too does the vast majority of human beings on the planet.
Outside of that, whatever someone wants to do in the bedroom or other
private area with another consenting human/furry/stuffed animal/latex
toy is perfectly fine with me.
The problem comes in when their activities start reflecting on *ME*,
which is certainly the case when people start insisting that their
activities are part of one we share in common. I am a furry fan. I
am not a plushophile, a zoophile, or whatever else has been bandied
around here as of late. These people don't realize that, intentional
or not, their claims that these activities can and do hurt the
reputation of other fur fans and of furry fandom in general.
That doesn't mean we don't want these people as fur fans. We most
certainly do, we simply ask that they show a little common decency and
refrain from telling people that X part of furry fandom when
absolutely anything outside of the enjoyment of anthropomorphic
animals falls outside of the furry fandom mainstream. Don't tar
people with whatever brush you are happy with, we simply don't want to
be known by that name and people *WILL* think we do the same thing
simply because we associate with someone who claims that their
activities are part of the fandom.
Rambling on...
Timothy E. Morgan
In article <31F41F...@mail.ccnet.com>, Aris Merquoni
<Ar...@mail.ccnet.com> writes
>Or maybe they're lengths of Shadow Square wire that's so thin it'll cut
>your hand in two if you touch it...
--
Timothy E. Morgan
Dennis Lee Bieber
Once could point at your signature block and object that
"Atheist", "RPG Gamer", and "Herpetophile" don't have anything to do
with being "furry" also. If those are permitted, then what is wrong
with a signature block that includes both "Furry" and "Plushophile".
If putting the latter two together in a signature "tars" the
fandom then doesn't yours also tar the fandom as being godless
snakelovers (ooh, now there's a bedroom scene for someone <G>).
I've not really seen anyone claim that being a plushophile is
a part of the fandom itself -- only that it is part of THEIR world;
just as it is NOT a part of yours.
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
Dennis Lee Bieber (wulf...@kd6mog.netcom.com) wrote:
: Once could point at your signature block and object that
: "Atheist", "RPG Gamer", and "Herpetophile" don't have anything to do
: with being "furry" also. If those are permitted, then what is wrong
: with a signature block that includes both "Furry" and "Plushophile".
Because the "Take Back Our Fandom" movement is more interested in getting
rid of things in fandom they don't like than they are in actually doing
something to improve furry fandom's image. Ever wonder why these folks
are attacking other furries instead of the real people responsible for
furry fandom's negative publicity? I do.
: I've not really seen anyone claim that being a plushophile is
: a part of the fandom itself -- only that it is part of THEIR world;
: just as it is NOT a part of yours.
That's because nobody is claiming that being a plushophile is a
requirement for being a furry fan. It's a straw man. It's
irrelevant. It's part of the fallacious argument that if you say you're
a furry fan and have interests other than anthropomorphic animals then by
some bizarre twist of logic you're saying everyone shares that interest.
When you think of it, a lot of this whining about furry fandom's image
problem consists of a lot of straw men and making mountains out of
molehills. It's fun to play the Blame Game. At least, until we expose
the people playing it....
1. Find a problem with furry fandom. (i.e., sex, bad art, rude fans.
It doesn't matter.)
2. Blow the incident out of proportion. (i.e., two furries caught
having sex at 3AM in a remote yet public location becomes 15 leather clad
furries having an orgy in the lobby at high noon)
3. Blame the problem on a group (i.e., the Leash & Collar crowd,
plushophiles, newbie fanboys...) instead of on the person responsible.
4. When someone writes a one-sided, exaggerated article about it and
gives the fandom negative publicity, start a little jihad against other
furry fans.
5. Repeat as necessary.
In essence, the "Take Back Our Fandom" crowd is doing more damage to the
fandom than the furries they're railing against.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn "United we stand, divided we fall."
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/furrymck.htm > SAVE FURRY FANDOM <
Per Aspera
On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, Brian Henderson wrote:
> My problem, and you are very right here Per, isn't that alternate
> lifestyles exist. I an 100% in favor of people living their lives
> however they want, am a staunch supporter of homosexual rights, the
> whole nine yards. Granted, I think bestiality is a sick perversion
> but so too does the vast majority of human beings on the planet.
> Outside of that, whatever someone wants to do in the bedroom or other
> private area with another consenting human/furry/stuffed animal/latex
> toy is perfectly fine with me.
>
> The problem comes in when their activities start reflecting on *ME*,
> which is certainly the case when people start insisting that their
> activities are part of one we share in common. I am a furry fan. I
> am not a plushophile, a zoophile, or whatever else has been bandied
> around here as of late. These people don't realize that, intentional
> or not, their claims that these activities can and do hurt the
> reputation of other fur fans and of furry fandom in general.
>
> That doesn't mean we don't want these people as fur fans. We most
> certainly do, we simply ask that they show a little common decency and
> refrain from telling people that X part of furry fandom when
> absolutely anything outside of the enjoyment of anthropomorphic
> animals falls outside of the furry fandom mainstream. Don't tar
> people with whatever brush you are happy with, we simply don't want to
> be known by that name and people *WILL* think we do the same thing
> simply because we associate with someone who claims that their
> activities are part of the fandom.
Well, I have no problem associating with thieves and tax collectors (I've
never been a "Your Kink Is Not OK" type of person). My feeling is this:
I don't necessarily engage in all the things that some other people do,
nor do I expect them to do all the things I do. I do expect people to be
tasteful and appropriate. And that's all.
Again, I don't feel that fur fandom is being "wrecked". But then, I
probably don't take it as seriously as a lot of people do, so it doesn't
matter to me.
Per Aspera, Ad Astra * mailto:ada...@io.com * http://www.io.com/~adastra
"It's not a sexual thing; it's a food thing." --Dusty Rancourt
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
: themselves as a "furry" AND a "plushophile"...it's when they claim that
: plushophilia is an inherently furry lifestyle that we have a problem, and
: that's because those who AREN'T plushie fans may not like being accused
: of such by others simply because they're furries.
Tell that to Rick Chandler. Because the only people I've seen claiming
furry fandom is about something other than anthropomorphics are Wired
Magazine and the "Take Back Our Fandom" brigade. Nobody has said
plushophilia is a requirement to be a furry fan. Nobody has said
zoophilia is a requirement to be a furry fan. Nobody has said sex is a
requirement to be a furry fan. Furry fandom is about anthropomorphic
animals, I think everyone understands that.
Doesn't it seem a bit illogical, then, that the "Take Back Our Fandom"
brigade has been targeting, among other people, fans of anthropomorphic
animals?
The only thing this reprehensible little jihad has accomplished is to
divide (read: weaken) furry fandom, and make furries take sides against
each other. We have met the enemy and they are furry fans.
: Well, right NOW people who may have no interest in sex as regards furries
: have to put up with the assumption on the part of the clueless that
: furfandom is "about" sex... not just any kind of sex, but "anything goes".
As I stated around this time last year, if anyone wants to improve furry
fandom's image they should be focusing on the real problems instead of
infighting with other furry fans. I think furry fandom's image would
improve if you started targeting the clueless people instead of the
people they're making generalizations about.
: justified in trying to keep straights or fundamentalists or whoever from
: trying to represent YOU to people you don't even know.
The only person who represents me is ME, and conversely, the only person
I represent is me. The Big Lie that I see being bandied about is that if
I have other interests than anthropomorphic animals then I somehow,
against all evidence and reason, am equating anthropomorphic animals with
said other interests.
Scott Alan Malcomson
Herman Miller (hmi...@io.com) wrote:
: hors...@indirect.com (Scott Alan Malcomson) wrote:
: >Wrong-o-matic, Xy. You see, we DON'T mind if someone categorizes
: >themselves as a "furry" AND a "plushophile"...it's when they claim that
: >plushophilia is an inherently furry lifestyle that we have a problem, and
: >that's because those who AREN'T plushie fans may not like being accused
: >of such by others simply because they're furries.
: This gets INCREASINGLY tiresome. It's getting to the point where, if indeed
: claims like this were ever actually made in the first place
The above is an example, based on someone else's prior use of the terms
"furry" and "plushophile". If I *hadn't* used the same terminology,
someone woulda bitched about my post being "off-topic", without doubt.
The fact remains that a number of people DO think that anything from
bestiality to plushophilia counts as a "furry lifestyle", and even if
these are an extreme minority THEY are what WE are "known for".
Ask any animator what it means to be "furry". If they've heard of the
fandom, nine times out of ten the response will be "a buncha sick
skunkf***ers". This rep is thanks to only two or three people who
tried to peddle furry porn to the animation industry at one time or
another, and is a rep that's been kept alive by *fans* who seem to think
that yes, furfandom is about nothing but smut --- hey, that's all *they*
care about, after all.
And yeah, such claims have been made around *here*, too --- by
bestialists, zoophiliacs, and even on the rare occasion by plushophiles.
Such comments are often the *triggers* for flamewars galore, or else they
keep such flamewars going. Even suggesting that bestial or zoophile sex
material be kept to an NC-17 section at the ConFurence Art Show rather
than expanded to the entire floor has met with bitter screams from those
who feel that ANY restrictions of any kind equate to "censorship". And
when it's pointed out to these folx that KIDS often attend CF with their
parents, a few have even suggested that it's okay for kids to see porn.
You wanna see flamewars stop or at least slow down? Stop posting
to them. All you're gonna get is a reply...which extends the flamewar,
since 99.9% of the time you're not gonna change the mind of the person
you're talking to.
: >to this or that African mission? Well, right NOW people who may have no
: >interest in sex as regards furries have to put up with the assumption on
: >the part of the clueless that furfandom is "about" sex...and not just any
: >kind of sex, but "anything goes".
: This problem can only be solved by education. Flaming furries is NOT going
: to solve this problem.
Tell me, what do you consider the difference between "flaming" and
"education" to be? How are we to "educate" anyone, if every time anyone
says anything the least bit controversial a dozen people jump their case?
: Continuing to make bizarre and unfounded allegations
: about furries is NOT going to solve this problem.
Pointing out factual problems (such as furfandom's bad rep and where it
got it) is neither bizarre or unfounded.
: The problem can only be
: solved by showing the clueless FAQs and pointers to furry art archives like
: the excellent one at http://rat.org/furry/ (Squeeky Clean Furry Archive).
Pardon me while I sit here and wait for someone to start flaming you for
"suggesting censorship". What you suggest --- that newbies to the fandom
be greeted with the clean side first so they get their feet wet before
seeing the dirty stuff --- has been the spark for dozens of flamewars in
the past on AFF.
: This is exactly the problem that AD&D gamers had to deal with when everyone
: believed the religious propaganda that claimed it was an evil Satanic occult
: game.
Major difference: in AD&D's case, the industry (RPG and wargamers) knew
better and the people who *weren't* involved in the industry were the
ones who got up in arms about it. In furfandom's case, the general public
doesn't know we exist; it's the INDUSTRY that's up in arms over us. That
translates to lost opportunities for people.
A good friend of mine is having severe trouble with an animation
project of his because his lead character designer --- a pro in the
animation field --- recently figured out that this was a "furry"
project, and bailed out in the middle of work. The work is PG with maybe
some R in it, but the very LABEL "furry" conjures up "XXX" in the minds
of many in the animation industry. Who do we all have to thank for this
state of affairs? People who claimed that their particular turn-ons were
a "furry lifestyle".
: It certainly wasn't the gamers who spread that propaganda. I don't
: know who is spreading false propaganda about furries, but I doubt that it's
: furries who are responsible.
Actually, it was.
---LCD
Herman Miller
In article <4tevfl$l...@globe.indirect.com>, hors...@indirect.com (Scott Alan Malcomson) wrote:
> You wanna see flamewars stop or at least slow down? Stop posting
>to them. All you're gonna get is a reply...which extends the flamewar,
>since 99.9% of the time you're not gonna change the mind of the person
>you're talking to.
Please take your own advice. I'd like to reply to your distortions, but I
won't. So there!
new fairy pictures -->> +----------<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/>----------
|"You have passed a law that will get less respect
Thryomanes (Herman Miller)| than the 55 m.p.h. speed limit dead bang in the
(hmi...@io.com) | middle of the First Amendment." - Steve Russell
Richard Chandler
In article <xydexxDv...@netcom.com>,
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen <xyd...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Tell that to Rick Chandler. Because the only people I've seen claiming
>furry fandom is about something other than anthropomorphics are Wired
>Magazine and the "Take Back Our Fandom" brigade. Nobody has said
>plushophilia is a requirement to be a furry fan. Nobody has said
>zoophilia is a requirement to be a furry fan. Nobody has said sex is a
>requirement to be a furry fan. Furry fandom is about anthropomorphic
>animals, I think everyone understands that.
Then perhaps you should open your eyes, because people have been saying
this with the whole "Lifestyle" bullshit that's sprung up. They've been
at a minumum saying that everyone MUST accept these practices because they
are a "Part" of the fandom, and that Tolerance is a "Part" of Furry
fandom, and that one is bad if one doesn't turn the other cheek each and
every time.
>Doesn't it seem a bit illogical, then, that the "Take Back Our Fandom"
>brigade has been targeting, among other people, fans of anthropomorphic
>animals?
Who else would we be taking it back from? The Ladies Crochet Circle
Auxiliary?
>As I stated around this time last year, if anyone wants to improve furry
>fandom's image they should be focusing on the real problems instead of
>infighting with other furry fans. I think furry fandom's image would
>improve if you started targeting the clueless people instead of the
>people they're making generalizations about.
So, oh wizened inflatable one, please enlighten us as to what these "Real"
problems are that we can fix to improve the Fandom's image?
Or is that lacking clue you refer to the idea that any old activity that
someone wants to hitch onto Furry Fandom is all hunky dory?
Richard Chandler
>alternative lifestyle people are quite content to have fun with others that
>feel the same way. Why be in someone's face when you can be having fun with
>someone you already like?
Unfortunately, that's not what people are doing. You must have missed the
posts by people who were told they weren't true furries because they
didn't subscribe to a particular kink.
>Considering that the fandom is still growing at at pretty fast rate, it
>obviously isn't being wrecked. :)
Growth in and of itself is not a good or bad thing. It's the KIND of
growth that makes a difference.
> You are as qualified as anyone else. Just
>because someone has been in the fandom longer than someone else, does not
>mean that they are more or less qualified to decide anything. His opininions
>are no more or less important than any of thousands of other fans. Many of
>those fans have vastly differing opinions and they are all equally valid. It
>is when people start demanding that others abide by their opinions that we
>have problems.
"Everybody's opinions are equally valid" sounds like the moral to a Smurf
cartoon or an episode of the Barney show. When two people give me advice,
I'll choose the one from the person with more experience over the other
every time. Admittedly, there are some cases where an outside opinion is
more valuable, but all that means is that opinions are _never_ universally
equal.
>I can't say anything other than about what I see here. I see people trying
>to say that a furry lifestyle is not part of the fandom, but it is for me. I
>see them saying, that sexuality, plushies, fursuit, collars, zoophilia, etc
>are not part of the fandom. But, they are for many of us. When we try to
>talk about these things that are part of the fandom for us, we are told to
>shut up or to take it somewhere else. This is furry talk, and this is where
>it belongs.
MAYbe the problem is that you're trying to add too many things to the mix.
You're defining the "Lifestyle" so broadly that people who are not into
all the things listed are feeling demeaned and insulted. It's like
someone telling Taral Wayne that he's not a true furry because he's not
Bisexual. Would someone tell me that because I'm not a Zoophile I'm
somehow deficient?
I was never saying the people couldn't be these things, but that they are
not requirements of being a furry fan. And terming that little list you
made the "Furry Lifestyle" is particularly galling to those of us who've
given years of our lives to promoting anthropomorphics. By calling it the
lifestyle, you're telling all the folks who don't do those things that
they are not fully comitted to the fandom. And that's going to drive off
the folks who say, like Albedo but are not interested in stuffed animals.
And when you say "For many of us" then what does that say about those who
are not part of the "Many"? I still maintain that Furry Fandom is better
defined by that trait which is universal to all the participants, a love
of anthropomorphics, than by a conglomeration of all of the interests of
the participants.
>So, by telling us to go somewhere else, Rich and others are making us feel
>unwelcome, based on his opinion of what their opinions of the fandom are.
>They want us to conform to their ideas of what a furry is. We can't do that.
>We can't just change our beliefs and quit talking about what is often the
>most important part of our lives. As a rule, the alternative lifestyle
>furries aren't trying to force others into believing as they do. They are
>not telling anyone to shut up when they talk about comics, zines, that they
>can turn off their furriness when they go to work or that furry is just a
>hobby. They are trying to force us to accept this for ourselves and deny us
>permission to discuss our beliefs.
WHY can't things like Plushophilia, or Zoophilia or Fursuits stand on
their own two (four? :-) legs as seperate but equal components of your
life? When you keep insisting that this whole package encompasses furry
fandom, you make it hard from people who want to accept the parts a la
carte.
(Actually, doesn't Zoophilia stand apart anyway?)
Or are you willing to posit that a love of Firearms is ALSO part of the
Furry Lifestyle?
D. A. Graf
Chris Johnson <jinx...@sover.net> wrote:
: Heh. Never stops, does it?
: Looks like I'm still not a furry or much of a furry fan- just up on
: Tygger's 'bleachers' looking on idly.
: Hey Tygger, you still up in the bleachers too? Do hot dog vendors come
: up here? ;)
Yeah, still here but extremely at the fringe. More like closer to the
exit and I just have my hand stamped to return into the Anthro Stadium
when I want.
--Tygger
--
******************************************************************************
gr...@primenet.com print listing: erotica/nonerotica/anthros/humanoids
ftp://svansmoj.ctrl-c.liu.se/furry/images/artists/tygger
http://www.av.qnet.com/~canuss/tygger Guardian Knights: Feb 97
******************************************************************************
"AUGH! IT ATE MY GUN!!!"
-- Sara on a case, Guardian Knights, D.A. & Tygger Graf --
Scott Alan Malcomson
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen (xyd...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Scott Alan Malcomson (hors...@indirect.com) wrote:
: : Ask any animator what it means to be "furry". If they've heard of the
: : skunkf***ers". This rep is thanks to only two or three people who
: It's also a reputation being kept alive by the "Take Back Our Fandom"
: Movement
Oh, suuuure, we all just spend our weekends going to major animation
houses and saying, "Remember us? We're the skunkf***ers! Don't forget!".
In point of fact, the rep is kept alive by industry types that go to CF
to see for themselves what we're all about...and who are met in the halls
by guys on leashes, in the dealers' room by porno portfolios, in the
furry parties by sketchbooks full of bondage shots, and so on.
Our rep isn't kept alive by the "Take Back our Fandom" types...it's
kept alive by the "Who The Hell Are You to Tell Me to Act Civilized?"
Movement.
---LCD
Scott Alan Malcomson
: Please take your own advice. I'd like to reply to your distortions, but I
: won't. So there!
"And what have you learned from the example of Herman Miller?"
"That hypocritical posting is a weapon only to your enemy."
"Very good."
"Also, getting in the last shot. Flame to the head!"
<gryn>
---LCD
Per Aspera
On 29 Jul 1996, Richard Chandler wrote:
> Then perhaps you should open your eyes, because people have been saying
> this with the whole "Lifestyle" bullshit that's sprung up. They've been
> at a minumum saying that everyone MUST accept these practices because they
> are a "Part" of the fandom, and that Tolerance is a "Part" of Furry
> fandom, and that one is bad if one doesn't turn the other cheek each and
> every time.
I think they *are* "part" of the fandom, Rich -- just not a "definitive"
part.
> >Doesn't it seem a bit illogical, then, that the "Take Back Our Fandom"
> >brigade has been targeting, among other people, fans of anthropomorphic
> >animals?
>
> Who else would we be taking it back from? The Ladies Crochet Circle
> Auxiliary?
Don't dis the LCCA, those chicks are deadly with a crochet hook. ;)
> >As I stated around this time last year, if anyone wants to improve furry
> >fandom's image they should be focusing on the real problems instead of
> >infighting with other furry fans. I think furry fandom's image would
> >improve if you started targeting the clueless people instead of the
> >people they're making generalizations about.
>
> So, oh wizened inflatable one, please enlighten us as to what these "Real"
> problems are that we can fix to improve the Fandom's image?
>
> Or is that lacking clue you refer to the idea that any old activity that
> someone wants to hitch onto Furry Fandom is all hunky dory?
Why does Fur Fandom need its image improved? I mean, I know about the
skunkfuckers thing, but what's the big deal? Who are we trying to appeal
to? Are we trying to recruit? Is it because all the fave comix are dying
from lack of sales and we think if we can attract mainstream people to the
fandom it'll stay alive? What's the reason?
I, personally, have never cared if whatever I'm involved with looks nice
to outsiders or not (as long as they don't stick their nose in my bizniz).
To be honest, I, for myself, really don't care if people who are not furry
fans think that I fuck animals (stuffed or live), or eat babies for lunch,
or whatever. I'm not saying that nobody should care -- but really, why do
we (as a group) feel the image needs improving?
I'm not trying to be difficult here (no, really!) -- I just wanna know.
If I know who I'm supposed to impress and why, maybe I'll feel like doing
it.
Paul Bennett
In article <jinx6568-290...@pm0a20.bratt.sover.net>, jinx...@sover.net (Chris Johnson) writes:
> > On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, Brian Henderson wrote:
> > > The problem comes in when their activities start reflecting on *ME*,
> > > which is certainly the case when people start insisting that their
> > > activities are part of one we share in common. I am a furry fan. I
> (snip)
> > > That doesn't mean we don't want these people as fur fans. We most
> > > certainly do, we simply ask that they show a little common decency and
>
> Heh. Never stops, does it?
> Looks like I'm still not a furry or much of a furry fan- just up on
> Tygger's 'bleachers' looking on idly.
> Hey Tygger, you still up in the bleachers too? Do hot dog vendors come
> up here? ;)
>
> Jinx_tigr
> (aka Chris Johnson)
Don't know about the hotdog vendors but there is a fox headed that
way with a big vr tin of warm cookies (He's been at the Norwegian
cookbook again).
Unfortunately, there is not a lot any of us can do about how other
people decide to label themselves.
Personally I dislike labels. Comes down too much to stereotyping
which I had driven into my head is a big nono for a lot of years.
Occasionally I find myself slipping into that nasty habit although
I do make a point of resisting the urge. Besides which, labels
NEVER really describe a person. (People have been known to get a
nasty surprise from me when they think they have my given response
tucked away neatly into a box.)
Couple of cases in point. Look I am going to use a couple of
unfortunate examples. Folks may take offense. Please don't,
it is not my wish to cause offense or pain. Advance apologies
but sometimes specific examples are necessary.
Remember that little set-to a while back about Christianity? Excellent
example of labeling. There will be people on the extremes of the
environment who label themselves Christian, and may very well believe
they are, unfortunately their acts upset or anger others. Their angry
reactions all too often wind up tarring all Christians with the same
brush. Is it right? No. Is it human and understandable? Unfortunately,
yes, it happens rather too often. Again, my apologies, no flames or
judgements intended.
This labeling is not limited to just furrydom. It is far too common in
the world at large. I can understand the dislike of being on the
receiving end of an inappropriate, usually incorrect, and frequently
insulting label. Been there, gone through that. Had to just shrug it
off.
A lot of times, like it or not, about all you can do is blow it
off. You sure can't get away from it. Like I said, this labeling
and extreme edge of the envelope behaviour is all too common and is
certainly not limited to furrydom. I have seen it in far too many
other hobby fields as well.
Paul
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
Richard Chandler (mau...@teleport.com) wrote:
: Then perhaps you should open your eyes, because people have been saying
: this with the whole "Lifestyle" bullshit that's sprung up. They've been
: at a minumum saying that everyone MUST accept these practices because they
: are a "Part" of the fandom, and that Tolerance is a "Part" of Furry
: fandom, and that one is bad if one doesn't turn the other cheek each and
: every time.
From where I'm standing, the lifestyle issue wouldn't be one if this
appalling attempt to divide the fandom hadn't gotten started in the first
place. There is a world of difference between saying something is a part
of the fandom vs. something is a requirement of the fandom.
: >Doesn't it seem a bit illogical, then, that the "Take Back Our Fandom"
: >brigade has been targeting, among other people, fans of anthropomorphic
: >animals?
: Who else would we be taking it back from? The Ladies Crochet Circle
: Auxiliary?
If I remember correctly, didn't you say you wanted to get rid of the
mercenaries who didn't care about furry fandom and were only in it to
make a fast buck? (And on the same side of the coin, others have said
how GREAT it would be to have Disney or Warner Bros. or some other Corporate
Entity having a table at a con... but wait, wouldn't they qualify as
being in it to make a fast buck TOO? I'M CONFUSED...) -:)
: So, oh wizened inflatable one, please enlighten us as to what these "Real"
: problems are that we can fix to improve the Fandom's image?
You have some good ideas, Rich, I will concede that. Unfortunately, the
only solutions to the problems you've put forth involve attacking other
furry fans instead of the source of the problems.
: Or is that lacking clue you refer to the idea that any old activity that
: someone wants to hitch onto Furry Fandom is all hunky dory?
Explain again how anyone is hitching anything to furry fandom.
Chris Johnson
Richard Chandler
>Movement, whose efforts would be a lot more productive if they were
>directed toward people who think furry fans are "a buncha sick
>skunkfuckers" instead of at people who like anthropomorphic animals.
So, you're against any effort to get people in the fandom to clean up
their act. Ignoring the problem is a better solution than trying to do
anything about it, eh?
You see, in order to convince these people you think we should be
directing our efforts at, first what we tell them has to be true. And at
the moment, it isn't. I could tell a dozen animators that Furry Fandom is
not "A buncha sick skunkfuckers" til I was blue in the face. And if I
convinced some of them, and they came to CF, and were confronted by people
toting anatomicly correct Kimba dolls under their arms, and hearing about
someone else messing with their pony's genetalia, and they go in the art
show and see pictures of the cartoon characters they make their living
drawing being debased in ways that would get them fired for even thinking
of, well, I think my credibility would be pretty well shot, and it would
be a generation before we could try again.
Convincing people that the fandom has cleaned up its act is phase 2.
Before we can do that we have to actually clean it up.
(And note well, I DO NOT mean that we must expunge adult art in order to
clean up the fandom, we just need to deal with it and present it in a much
more refined and genteel way.)
D.M. Quozl Falk
Paul Bennett (ben...@cise.ufl.edu) wrote:
[...]
: This labeling is not limited to just furrydom. It is far too common in
: the world at large. I can understand the dislike of being on the
: receiving end of an inappropriate, usually incorrect, and frequently
: insulting label. Been there, gone through that. Had to just shrug it
: off.
: A lot of times, like it or not, about all you can do is blow it
: off. You sure can't get away from it. Like I said, this labeling
: and extreme edge of the envelope behaviour is all too common and is
: certainly not limited to furrydom. I have seen it in far too many
: other hobby fields as well.
I've said much the same thing before, and got flamed....
Is there _any_ intelligent life in this group? Sometimes I wonder...
....Quozl!
--
Presidential Candidate for the Third Millenium! Quozl for Prez in 2000!
Dennis M. Falk, aka "Quozl Mephit" : 221 Huntoon St. Eureka, CA 95501-4115 USA
Writer, Furry fan, Cartoon fan, Music lover : "A Novel Experience!"
Skunks, skunks, skunks! : Tiny Toons forever! : Snapple me!
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
No, but you'll notice that it has the same effect as infighting with
other furry fans does.
: In point of fact, the rep is kept alive by industry types that go to CF
: to see for themselves what we're all about...
CONGRATULATIONS, you've correctly identified the source of furry fandom's
bad reputation! Now, prepare yourself for this next question. It's a
tough one....
"Which Is The Best Way To Deal With It?" (Choose one:)
A) Get rid of furry guys on leashes
B) Get rid of furry porno portfolios
C) Get rid of furry bondage shots
D) Get rid of furry fandom's reputation
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
Richard Chandler (mau...@teleport.com) wrote:
: "Everybody's opinions are equally valid" sounds like the moral to a Smurf
: cartoon or an episode of the Barney show.
You got something against Barney, Mr. Chandler?
Let's take a look here... he's a big purple dinosaur, immensely popular
with the kids, doesn't boink animals or plushies or wander around wearing
collars, is wholesome enough not to offend the family values crowd,
profitable enough to be an attractive prospect for the industry types,
and most of all, he's furry -- and that's what furry fandom, after all,
is about.
Gee, Rich... correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as if Barney would be
the PERFECT role model for the "Take Back Our Fandom Movement", no?
Think of the possibilities! Who needs spooge art when we've got BARNEY?
Mundane parents and sticky-fingered youngins could flock to cons and bask in
furry fandom's kinder, gentler, family-oriented image! Industry reps
will respect us! Trekkies will envy us! Furry fandom will sweep the
nation like a great cartoon tsunami! Warner Bros. and Disney would jump
at the chance to be there, with a table for every character! Wow, just
imagine HAVING BARNEY AS GUEST OF HONOR AT CONFURENCE EIGHT!!!
By goddess, it'll be wonderful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn | "Watch what you wish for,
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/furrymck.htm | it just might come true."
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
Richard Chandler (mau...@teleport.com) wrote:
: We have to eliminate some of the negative articles, which is why I send
: notes to the various webmasters who put up the old Dr. Pepper file as
: their definition of "What is a Furry" and point them at better
: alternatives like Greywolf's and Watts Martin's
Bravo! Now we're starting to make progress. (I did an AltaVista search
on "Dr. Pepper" and "Furry" the other night and stumbled across Watt's
Martin's page and was impressed.)
Finding alternatives to the Dr. Pepper file is an excellent starting
point, especially when newer versions of "What Is A Furry" exist. Nobody
wants outdated and/or inaccurate information on their homepage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Henderson
xyd...@netcom.com (Karl Xydexx Jorgensen) wrote:
>What gives furry fandom a bad name is folks who write one-sided articles
>on furry fandom and make generalizations based on what a few people do,
>which in no way represents the whole of furry fandom. Unfortunately,
>your solution to this seems to be to use other furry fans as a convenient
>scapegoat for the problem and setting up an "us" and "them" dichotomy
>among furry fans which frankly leaves nowhere for those of us caught in
>the crossfire to go.
I'll agree with you wholeheartedly there Karl. People who write
one-sided articles (which is how this whole debacle started) cause
plenty of harm to the fandom. I think 99% of us are in agreement with
that.
However, you seem to enjoy misrepresenting my position. I never said
anything about scapegoats or about anyone not being welcome in the
fandom. In fact, you have overlooked all the places I have gone out
of my way to tell people that they *ARE* welcome in the fandom! Why
is that? One more time: If you are a furry, you are welcome in the
fandom. If you are a furry/sexual plushophile, you are welcome in the
fandom. If you are a furry/bestialist, you are welcome in the fandom.
If you are a furry/pedophile, you are welcome in the fandom. However,
your sexual plushophila/bestiality/pedophilia is *NOT* welcome in the
fandom, it is totally outside of the fandom and most people resent
people, as you pointed out above, referring to these things as part of
the fandom.
Can we stop building straw men now and deal with some of the issues?
>Further, Mr. Henderson, as the target of your little crusade is other
>furry fans you are ostracizing not only current fans but potential new
>ones as well. I don't see the logic in making the fandom stronger by
>making it smaller and having furries fighting with each other. I don't
>see how being a veritable piece of furniture in furry fandom gives you
>some special privelege to determine what furry fandom is about (I've been
>around about 3 years, and if it irks me you can imagine how the newbies
>must feel...) but as your pal Matt Mason says, "Credential-waving is the
>last refuge of the desperate", eh?
Potential new fans? If nothing else, the fact that some individuals
insist on equating furry fandom with the above-listed sexual
perversions keeps quality fans away more than what you assume. Fandom
grows by attracting quality fans. How are we going to attract quality
fans if everyone outside of furry fandom thinks we're all a bunch of
over-sexed perverts? No other major fandom has the same image
problems that furry fandom does. Why is that? I'd really appreciate
it if you'd explain it to me, I just don't get it.
>Last I checked, furry fandom was about anthropomorphic animals and being
>around a long time wasn't a requirement to like anthropomorphic animals.
Good call. It isn't about screwing sheep or stuffed animals. Thanks
for making my point.
Brian Henderson
xyd...@netcom.com (Karl Xydexx Jorgensen) wrote:
>Tell that to Rick Chandler. Because the only people I've seen claiming
>furry fandom is about something other than anthropomorphics are Wired
>Magazine and the "Take Back Our Fandom" brigade. Nobody has said
>plushophilia is a requirement to be a furry fan. Nobody has said
>zoophilia is a requirement to be a furry fan. Nobody has said sex is a
>requirement to be a furry fan. Furry fandom is about anthropomorphic
>animals, I think everyone understands that.
Tell that to Lynx and Ken Pollard, they are the ones who originally
started this by claiming that sexual plushophilia, homosexuality and a
few other things that slip my mind, are inherently part of furry
fandom. They aren't, never have been and never will be. You and I
agree on this point, why not tell them?
>Doesn't it seem a bit illogical, then, that the "Take Back Our Fandom"
>brigade has been targeting, among other people, fans of anthropomorphic
>animals?
Only those fans of anthropomorphic animals who also insist that furry
fandom is something else entirely.
>The only thing this reprehensible little jihad has accomplished is to
>divide (read: weaken) furry fandom, and make furries take sides against
>each other. We have met the enemy and they are furry fans.
Sounds normal. Within any fandom you will have factions who disagree,
it's just sad that so many people view their furry fandom as almost a
religion. Guys, it's a stinking hobby! It's what you do in your free
time! Sheesh!
>As I stated around this time last year, if anyone wants to improve furry
>fandom's image they should be focusing on the real problems instead of
>infighting with other furry fans. I think furry fandom's image would
>improve if you started targeting the clueless people instead of the
>people they're making generalizations about.
How do you propose to do this? We did target one clueless person
(namely Lynx) about his false claims. You're getting on us for doing
it. Hmmm...
>The only person who represents me is ME, and conversely, the only person
>I represent is me. The Big Lie that I see being bandied about is that if
>I have other interests than anthropomorphic animals then I somehow,
>against all evidence and reason, am equating anthropomorphic animals with
>said other interests.
No one has said that you, personally, are doing so. However, talk to
Lynx and Ken and see that they are expressly doing that.
John Van Stry
>: So, you're against any effort to get people in the fandom to clean up
>: their act. Ignoring the problem is a better solution than trying to do
>: anything about it, eh?
>
>want to improve furry fandom's image you should find something more
>productive to do than fight with other furry fans. Which brings us to...
>
>: You see, in order to convince these people you think we should be
>: directing our efforts at, first what we tell them has to be true.
>
>up your mind, Mr. Chandler. I agree, what we should tell them has to be
>true. I thought the truth was that furry fandom was about liking
>anthropomorphic animals, period. Please tell me, Mr. Chandler, where I
>have gone awry -- apparently I misunderstood what furry is all about.
>
>: [If animators...] came to CF, and were confronted by people
>: toting anatomicly correct Kimba dolls under their arms, and hearing about
>: someone else messing with their pony's genetalia, and they go in the art
>: show and see pictures of the cartoon characters they make their living
>: drawing being debased in ways that would get them fired for even thinking
>: of, well, I think my credibility would be pretty well shot, and it would
>: be a generation before we could try again.
>
>something other than furry fandom is about anthropomorphic animals, which
>I had previously thought was your intention. If you're trying to convince
>these people that zoos and plushophiles and all the other colorful
>and creative folks we're lucky to have aren't part of the fandom, then yes,
>you're going to look foolish. And rightfully so.
>
>
>: Convincing people that the fandom has cleaned up its act is phase 2.
>: Before we can do that we have to actually clean it up.
>
>Muppets getting rid of Animal and Gonzo because they give them a "bad image".
>
Rich is not saying that these people should be banned, or gotten rid
of. (Rich has no problem with Zoo's or Plushies for the most part,
enough of them come over to his house on a regular basis). The Problem
is this: Some Zoo's and Some Plushies promote furry fandom and CF as
a wholly Zoo or Plushie event. The articvle that RKO lynx (or whatever
his name is, apologies if I got it wrong) did portray CF as mainly a
plushie event, and yes - a f*ck fest. If you look at Groats Con report
the person wearing the Yiff! Shirt isn't someone he made up, but the
author of that other report.
That is what the problem is. CF isn't a plushie or Zoo event. It's an
anthropomorphic event. And that's how it needs to be promoted as. There
are more gun owners then plushies or zoos at CF, but no one would ever
think of promoting it as a Gun event, would they? And how about the
large number of people with military experience? Or college degrees?
Or who hate the EVIL BARNEY DEMON SPAWN? <laughs>.
I'm not saying now that people who are into these things shold stop,
or that they shouldn't go to CF, or that they should even stop
saying that there are lots of like minded people who go to CF, or
who are in the fandom. I just feel that those people in the fandom
whose writings and broadcasts are disseminated to the general public
should act a little more responsibly. This doesn't mean you can't
talk about the Plushie or Zoo things, or that one reason you go to CF
(or other Cons) is to see like minded people who go there too.
But I don't think you should represent the Fandom (Or CF) as being
about those things, even though there are Fans to whom those things
are very important. That is a disservice to all of us who enjoy
the fandom, Zoo's and Plushies included.
Banner
Peter Torkelson
_Whats Not Here_
You'll first notice that this article does not start out quoting anything
to which I am about to reply. I don't think I need to, any more, if you
have read this far, you know the story by now.
In fact, if you have read a.f.f. for over a week any time since it was
founded, you know the story.
Just the names have changed. Well, some of them anyway.
***********************************************************************
_Part of Fandom_
What is this weeks slant on how to declair agenda item X not valid and
thus something that should be anywhere from "hidden" to "bannished"?
It's not part of furry fandom. It's not anthro. Thats ALL fandom is
about.
We have, in fact, gotten so far from the supposed problems of fandom
that the justification IS the argument. All about the word "part".
Ok, fine.
_Part of Fandom II_
You can manipulate this argument to make your case? Lets see. How
about I invent my own agenda, and use your argument:
Lets take the art show.
Ok, we just want art in here that will show that we are only anthro
fans, so we need to eliminate all those elements that are not.
Ok, lets start with the obvious. Take that landscape out. "Hu?", you
say? Well, landscapes are not anthro. Thats not part of fandom.
Ok. Fine. Landscape gone. Next, the clothes. "Hu?", you say? Well,
we might be implying that clothes are a part of furry fandom. We don't
want that.
Ok. Fine. They can't be doing anything other than presenting themselfs,
otherwise it would imply whatever activity they are taking part in is
part of furry fandom.
So what does that leave? Nudes. Pinups, as some would call them.
Oh, and by the way, it's OK to show genitals, as long as they are not
arroused (that would imply an Activity), becuse as long as they are
some cross of human and animal, they are anthro.
***********************************************************************
_Extreems_
Now is it just me, or has this argument gone on way to long? Issues?
There are no more issues. There are just word definitions mutilated
to try and prove a point that has been failed at a thousand times over.
You know, I've never seen anyone who claims that you have to be a Zoo
or Plushy or even like sex to be a furry. The closest I've seen is
peices of a report that I would _NEVER_ have noticed, if it was not
ripped apart and reposted forever and ever in this and other threads.
But I'll give ya the benifit of the doubt, and assume such people
exist.
They are extreemists.
Just like the lot here that insists that they represent everyone who
draws a penis, and that every portfolio that has erotica in it is
unlabled in the dealers room and artist's alley, and that fandom is
about disney and moral correctness and or whatever.
They are extreemists too.
_Hitler_
I suppose that they will tell me that they are not. Or give me the
"extreem times extreem whatever" sorts of quotes, or something like
that.
I'm sure the neo-hitler-fans say the same things to outsiders too.
Yup. There it is. I said it. Hitler. Fanatasism. Facism.
Can we end the thread now?
Naw, not even the word HITLER can end THIS thread. It is imortal.
The sun will burn out first.
The human race will be living in generation ships, heading out
to he stars to seek a new home, and they will be exchanging flames
between ships over lightspeed laser com links. Who CARES if the
arguments get to the other folks after their dead? There will be
someone there to take their place and flame back anyway.
***********************************************************************
_Anty Up_
How about this? All you people who insist that there ought to be less
sex and stuff in fandom put your money where your mouth is. A lot of
people seem to think that fandom is about guns. Hell, I have a CF shirt
with this furry holding a gun bigger than she is. Violence. It offends
me. It offends lots of people. It's moraly wrong.
So anty up. No more tanks. No more guns. No more Albedo. No more swords,
no more evil magic. No more Xanadu.
What, I'm over generalizing? Your not all into guns? Yes you are! He is
on your side, and he drew a gun! So you all must be into it!
You need to stop! Or if you don't, you better hide it!
***********************************************************************
_Seriously_
Who will take this seriously? People that should not. They will flame
me for having an anti-gun, anti-NRA agenda. Who won't? The people that
probably should. Who should perhaps see that no ground has been won,
that the _real issues_ have long since been lost, burried under flames
and ash.
Strange that these people are both.
Stuffing flowers into guns untill hell frezes over,
Yours with love,
And a flower painted VW bus,
Throwing love beads,
WhiteFire.
Jonathan 'Chirik' Lang
On 7/30/96 18:45, in message <xydexxDv...@netcom.com>, Karl Xydexx
Jorgensen <xyd...@netcom.com> wrote:
> Gee, Rich... correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as if Barney would be
> the PERFECT role model for the "Take Back Our Fandom Movement", no?
...
> Think of the possibilities! Who needs spooge art when we've got BARNEY?
> Mundane parents and sticky-fingered youngins could flock to cons and bask in
> furry fandom's kinder, gentler, family-oriented image! Industry reps
> will respect us! Trekkies will envy us! Furry fandom will sweep the
> nation like a great cartoon tsunami! Warner Bros. and Disney would jump
> at the chance to be there, with a table for every character! Wow, just
> imagine HAVING BARNEY AS GUEST OF HONOR AT CONFURENCE EIGHT!!!
Oh, yeah... and in a few years, we could get big names from Disney, Warner,
etc to come to our cons; big-name animators and writers and artists from the
major production companies, best-selling authors, professional movie costume
designers, etc. And the fandom would grow! We wouldn't have hundreds or
thousands of people, but tens or hundreds of thousands - why, could start
holding a con every month, in different parts of the country and beyond -
'FurryCon' in a city near you, with special guest appearances from Disney, ILM
and Barney!
> By goddess, it'll be wonderful.
By goddess, it'd be ... creation cons all over again...
You know, it may not be exactly cute and cuddly (well, actually it is -
that's the source of the complaints ;-) and furrydom may not be oriented to the
'traditional' family, and it may not even be a very popular fandom, but I like
my furry like it is. With all of furry's 'bad' points, it's still here, it's
still growing, and families manage to raise kids in it. ("Mom, you're standing
on my tail!" - Vicky Shapiero [sorry if I mispelled that name] from CF6... ;-)
. Chirik the (currently .sigless) Skwurrel
Per Aspera
On 31 Jul 1996, Watts Martin wrote:
> In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.96073...@xanadu.io.com>, Per Aspera wrote:
> >Why does Fur Fandom need its image improved? I mean, I know about the
> >skunkfuckers thing, but what's the big deal? Who are we trying to appeal
> >to? Are we trying to recruit? Is it because all the fave comix are dying
> >from lack of sales and we think if we can attract mainstream people to the
> >fandom it'll stay alive? What's the reason?
>
> To me it's more a matter of not giving new people entering furry fandom a
> bad impression. [...snip....]
> And I consider losing any potential fan to be an actual loss.
I agree with you there, Watts. But on the other hand, the big world of
sf/fantasy/gaming/fur fandom, which is very nebulous, and has besides a
*lot* of overlap with the kinky/alternative/bdsm crowd, really is like
that -- oh, I don't expect everyone who is into furry to be kinky,
certainly, but because there's so much overlap among the different kinds
of fandom, *and* the kinky crowd, it's really hard to keep it from seeping
into a newbie's first impression. Much better, I think, to be a resource
(as you seem to be) and put yourself forward as a guide for newbies to
assure them that no, they don't *have* to do that stuff unless it's
something they want.
You *may* still lose a few, but if your "guiding light" is obvious enough,
it won't be that many. And yes, that means it's important to say "Furry
!= Plushophilia", "Furry !=Zoophilia", "Furry !=Big Bodacious Bear Babes
With Bouncing Boobs" -- whatever! -- over and over.
But it's also important to give the people for whom that stuff is
important a safe haven, I think. They are fans too, and this is their
fandom. And so, once again, it comes down to "Be discreet, be polite, but
be yourself."
Dwight J. Dutton
I'm having my arm re-broken & reset next Wednesday (and no, I'm not a
massochist - it healed wrong)
I'm going to the same health clinic that treats all of the big name
athletes. Guess who's doing the operation?
Dr. Richard Chandler.
How can you be short of money? I'm giving you $12,000 for this
operation! ;->
On another note, assembling HUZZAH # 23 is going to remind me of what
#19 was like (ouch). Seems like I just went through this.
Fun with metal detectors for the rest of my life, too. Happy Happy Joy
Joy.
=====================
http://www.huzzah.com
=====================
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
By the way, you simply must tell me where all these furries managed to get
all those anatomically correct Kimba dolls from. I had no idea there
were so many furry fans wandering around with them. You make it sound like
they're almost as popular as the proverbial black sketchbook. Was someone
selling them at Confurence 7? I hope they still have them by the time
CFE rolls around. I obviously need one so I can be like the oh-so-MANY
other furries who have them. Oh yes indeed.
: Convincing people that the fandom has cleaned up its act is phase 2.
: Before we can do that we have to actually clean it up.
Cleaning up the fandom by scapegoating zoos and plushophiles is like the
Muppets getting rid of Animal and Gonzo because they give them a "bad image".
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Watts Martin
In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.96073...@xanadu.io.com>, Per Aspera wrote:
>Why does Fur Fandom need its image improved? I mean, I know about the
>skunkfuckers thing, but what's the big deal? Who are we trying to appeal
>to? Are we trying to recruit? Is it because all the fave comix are dying
>from lack of sales and we think if we can attract mainstream people to the
>fandom it'll stay alive? What's the reason?
To me it's more a matter of not giving new people entering furry fandom a
bad impression. I know some here feel this argument is setting up a straw
man, of sorts, but I have friends who didn't get involved in furrydom, drew
back once they were involved, or stayed at a "minimum safe distance" because
they were given the impression that furry fandom was "about" specific things
that they weren't comfortable with. If I come across at times as
encouraging people to tone down their non-furry interests in the fandom,
it's not because I want to see them run out of town on a rail; I'd just
rather have newbies get introduced to "serious funny animals" through things
like Xanadu and Albedo rather than get hit with a load of X-rated fetish art
right off the bat. If they're interested in the more esoteric stuff,
they'll find it on their own with minimal effort, but if they're *not* and
that's all they see at first, they *will* get the impression that furrydom
is both pretty narrow and by their personal standards, unpleasantly bizarre.
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
Brian Henderson (BHen...@kirk.microsys.net) wrote:
: Tell that to Lynx and Ken Pollard, they are the ones who originally
: started this by claiming that sexual plushophilia, homosexuality and a
: few other things that slip my mind, are inherently part of furry
: fandom. They aren't, never have been and never will be. You and I
: agree on this point, why not tell them?
Because neither of them is claiming these things are what furry fandom is
all about. Neither of them is saying furry fandom equals sexual
plushophilia, homosexuality, or so many other things that have slipped
your mind. The person so far that I see screaming the loudest about
furry being equal to ANY of the above is YOU.
: >The only person who represents me is ME, and conversely, the only person
: >I represent is me. The Big Lie that I see being bandied about is that if
: >I have other interests than anthropomorphic animals then I somehow,
: >against all evidence and reason, am equating anthropomorphic animals with
: >said other interests.
: No one has said that you, personally, are doing so. However, talk to
: Lynx and Ken and see that they are expressly doing that.
No, they aren't. But if you haven't figured that out by now then it's
doubtful you ever will. Have fun ranting about how furry fandom equals
zoophilia, Mr. Henderson. I'm moving on.
D.M. Quozl Falk
A wise kid named Jonathan 'Chirik' Lang (chi...@efaxinc.com) wrote:
(Hey, to me his _is_ a kid... :P :) )
[...]
: You know, it may not be exactly cute and cuddly (well, actually it is -
: that's the source of the complaints ;-) and furrydom may not be oriented to the
: 'traditional' family, and it may not even be a very popular fandom, but I like
: my furry like it is. With all of furry's 'bad' points, it's still here, it's
: still growing, and families manage to raise kids in it. ("Mom, you're standing
: on my tail!" - Vicky Shapiero [sorry if I mispelled that name] from CF6... ;-)
Hear! Hear! :) Such sentiments I have to agree with! :) I'll add a few of
my own here, too:
If this fandom suddenly became popular, the one thing it would lose,
which happens to be one thing that _attracts_ me to this fandom in the
first place, is _CREATIVITY_... Furfandom is one of the most creative
and imaginative fandoms in existance, and if it was mainstreamed, it
would end up commercialised, losing the very creativity for the sake of
the Almighty Buck (and I'm not talking about a male ungulate with
antlers, either)... Maybe it's the fact I am no city boy that I can see
this fandom's current form as analogious to an arts-&-crafts fair, but
some want it to become a furry Trek con...
Aside from the nastyness that pops up in this forum, furry fandom is
really about what is _right_ within humanity: friendship, fun,
creativity, and getting along. I'm a strong believer in IDIC-- "Infinite
Diversity in Infinite Combinations", and furry fandom is (normally) a
prime example of IDIC in action...
So what of our "bad" reputation outside fandom? Heh- The grass always
seems greener on the other side... :) The truth is, no amount of cleaning
up will ever change the image of fandom in the eyed of those who don't
really give a damn in the first place. If anything, the petty infighting
expoused here is doing _far_ more damage to fandom than the elements
supposedly to blame for fandom's problem to begin with. The _real_ image
problem doesn't come from the outside, but rather _inside_ fandom, ie:
fans blaming unusual elements for why fandom-at-large is not as popular
as they'd like it to be. Why, do you believe just because furfandom is
the greatest thing _you_ have known, that others should share that
sentiment, so that means that because furfandom is _not_ that popular, it
must be because of certain aspects of fandom to blame? Has it occurred to
you that the extreme elements of furfandom have _nothing_ to do with why
furfandom isn't the next big trend? Well, actually, it _does_, but not in
the way some _think!_ :) Mainstream fandom _abhores_ diversity, period...
Society at large prefers conformity- Look around you!
Me, I'm a classic iconoclast by nature, and _prefer_ the diversity of
furfandom as we currently know it. And at the risk of repeating myself in
the same message, I'll restate: Furfandom is the most _creative_ and
_imaginative_ fandom I know of, and that's what I love about it! I
wouldn't _want_ to change furfandom, even with elements I don't like. I'm
only bothered by the demogoguery that comes up in fannish politics.
Hatred and bigotry towards _any_ aspect of fandom is the single most
destructive force within fandom, and is far more a danger than whether
someone enjoys sex with _toys_ or not...
Furfandom has an identity crisis, and it's not from the outside.
Mark Freid
>Richard Chandler (mau...@teleport.com) wrote:
>: "Everybody's opinions are equally valid" sounds like the moral to a Smurf
>: cartoon or an episode of the Barney show.
>
>You got something against Barney, Mr. Chandler?
>
>Let's take a look here... he's a big purple dinosaur, immensely popular
>with the kids, doesn't boink animals or plushies or wander around wearing
>collars, is wholesome enough not to offend the family values crowd,
>profitable enough to be an attractive prospect for the industry types,
>and most of all, he's furry -- and that's what furry fandom, after all,
>is about.
>
>Gee, Rich... correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as if Barney would be
>the PERFECT role model for the "Take Back Our Fandom Movement", no?
>
>Think of the possibilities! Who needs spooge art when we've got BARNEY?
>Mundane parents and sticky-fingered youngins could flock to cons and bask in
>furry fandom's kinder, gentler, family-oriented image! Industry reps
>will respect us! Trekkies will envy us! Furry fandom will sweep the
>nation like a great cartoon tsunami! Warner Bros. and Disney would jump
>at the chance to be there, with a table for every character! Wow, just
>imagine HAVING BARNEY AS GUEST OF HONOR AT CONFURENCE EIGHT!!!
>
>By goddess, it'll be wonderful.
>
Well, I have to admit, you have some reasonable points there, but the
downside it, for some inexplicable reason, whenever I see him for more
than 2 minutes at a time, I suddenly become physically ill. It starts
at the stomach, with minor aches, then I become moderately dizzy and
nauseous. It's not serious, but It does cause me to have to lie down.
FYI, the above was not sarcasm. It's the <deity name>'s honest truth.
-Mark
Peter Torkelson
Richard Chandler wrote:
>
> Say, if it's an XL, I've been wanting a CF7 shirt. They were out by the
> time I wanted to get one.
>
> (Say, if it offends him so, think there's a chance I can get him to just
> _give_ it to me? :-)
>
You know, at the very bottom of the message he is replying to, it says
that some people would not get the sarcasm and what the message was
about.
Thanks for providing an example for me! :)
I happen to like that tshirt, perhaps you ought to read that message
again. Ring Ring, clue phone.
Ronni Asrouch
Peter Torkelson wrote:
> _Seriously_
>
> Who will take this seriously? People that should not. They will flame
> me for having an anti-gun, anti-NRA agenda. Who won't? The people that
> probably should. Who should perhaps see that no ground has been won,
> that the _real issues_ have long since been lost, burried under flames
> and ash.
>
> Strange that these people are both.
>
>
>
> Stuffing flowers into guns untill hell frezes over,
> Yours with love,
> And a flower painted VW bus,
> Throwing love beads,
> WhiteFire.
>
I have a really hard time imagining a white 50 foot dragon throwing
lovebeads about, let alone a 5 footish white fox throwing lovebeads...
YOU really need to draw that one! *Giggle*
But I digress --:
As Donna Barr once said...so perfectly.......
>If you take this seriously, You deserve it.<
~~~
FANDOM --> Relating to being an admirer....devotee of an event, group,
idea, thought, behavior or place. The collective group of admirers.
Some Denver Brono Fans claim to have a _Lifestyle_ with their football
weekends, barbe-ques, outings, artwork, talk etc.... Heck WHAT about
Star Trek Groupies type. They REALLY make a lifestyle out of Star Trek
and last I checked they were QUITE fans!
So till someone puts out a _handbook_ of rules and regulations for being
a Furry Fan, I will continue being Kinky, sick, perverted, twisted,
insane Dom female pantheress type, and if you want to go ahead an outlaw
those behaviors, Goody!, then we will just have to start our own new
fandom.....
--
*Ronni Asrouch
**It's a Cat thing, Ya wouldn't understand ^_^
***This is MY opinion not of the company I work for...
Brian Henderson
I appear to have missed this article the first time around. Sorry. I
>Per Aspera (ada...@io.com) wrote:
>: Why does Fur Fandom need its image improved? I mean, I know about the
>: skunkfuckers thing, but what's the big deal? Who are we trying to appeal
>: to? Are we trying to recruit? Is it because all the fave comix are dying
>: from lack of sales and we think if we can attract mainstream people to the
>: fandom it'll stay alive? What's the reason?
That is certainly a good reason don't you think? There are others but
don't you want to see furry comics thrive? Don't you want to see CF
reach 2000 attendees? If a fandom doesn't grow, it stagnates and
dies. A lot of people around here care about the fandom. I'm just
sorry that there are so many who are only interested in themselves.
>: I, personally, have never cared if whatever I'm involved with looks nice
>: to outsiders or not (as long as they don't stick their nose in my bizniz).
>: To be honest, I, for myself, really don't care if people who are not furry
>: fans think that I fuck animals (stuffed or live), or eat babies for lunch,
>: or whatever. I'm not saying that nobody should care -- but really, why do
>: we (as a group) feel the image needs improving?
I don't know about you, but there are a lot of people in furry fandom
who have to watch out for their professional contacts. Furry fandom
is a hobby. When your hobbies have the potential to hurt your
professional life, shouldn't you be concerned? Paul Kidd was
professionally and financially hurt by furry fandom. Doesn't this
concern you?
Peter Torkelson
Richard Chandler wrote:
> Now that the problem has been identified, what do we do about it? My
> approach, in spite of some people's misrepresentations, is not to "ban"
> these people, but hopefully to educate them. I got harsh. I pointed
> their noses at the spot on the carpet and said "Bad dog". I hopefully got
> people to ask themselves "Is that me?" and judging from some of the angry
> responses, some of them answered yes and were none to happy about it.
> That's too bad, but I'm not taking it back. I love this fandom and at the
> moment, it's "Tough love" that it needs.
You don't educate people by telling them, "hey, your a jerk who is ruining
the world!" You think they are going to listen? Do you think they should?
Acting childish and ranting does not get people to listen. It gets them to
pick sides. And the rants you have been writing have been of the worst sort,
Richard.
And when are you going to start talking about the issues rather than patting
yourself on the back for waking people up? Please. As if people don't discuss
this subject here anyway. It's time you woke up, and read the newsgroup.
Read what you posted. And read the responses.
Aparently you have not heard those little sayings like, "you attract more flys
with honey" and all that jaz.
As to issues... I am talking about _my_ issues here. My issues are simple:
fans ragging on fans for how they enjoy fandom. Under whatever banner of
reputation, moral correctness, or anything else. THats one of the big ones.
As to yours? In a number of posts, I've suggested some solutions. You never
bother responding to those. Positive or negitive. You just respond to my posts
when you can flame them.
Makes me wonder if you want solutions, or just something to vent about.
Richard Chandler
In article <xydexxDv...@netcom.com>,>My main issue is that I'm not particularly pleased that furry fans such
>as myself are being made to feel unwelcome because we have interests
>other than anthropomorphic animals. I don't have sex in public with
>animals/plushies/furry fans at cons, I don't act like an obnoxious fanboy
>and pester the artists at cons, I don't wander around in the same clothes
>for three days without taking a shower at cons, I don't go around saying
>furry fandom is about anything other than anthropomorphics... and yet,
>there's this feeling that I'm persona non grata. And that's not fun.
If you don't do these things, then you're not part of the problem.
Indeed, you've identified some of the people I identified in my editorial,
so we are at least partially in agreement.
Now that the problem has been identified, what do we do about it? My
approach, in spite of some people's misrepresentations, is not to "ban"
these people, but hopefully to educate them. I got harsh. I pointed
their noses at the spot on the carpet and said "Bad dog". I hopefully got
people to ask themselves "Is that me?" and judging from some of the angry
responses, some of them answered yes and were none to happy about it.
That's too bad, but I'm not taking it back. I love this fandom and at the
moment, it's "Tough love" that it needs.
If Tygger can "Mom Voice" Dennis and get him to straighen out temporarily,
then we can all do it for our fellow fans.
Richard Chandler
>: "Everybody's opinions are equally valid" sounds like the moral to a Smurf
>: cartoon or an episode of the Barney show.
>
>You got something against Barney, Mr. Chandler?
Yup, he's the embodiment of everything venal and insipid in the Children's
television industry, with an (un)healthy dose of political correctness.
>Think of the possibilities! Who needs spooge art when we've got BARNEY?
You know, I really ought to be used to this by now, but somehow I still
find it annoying because I NEVER ONCE SAID THAT SPOOGE ART SHOULD BE
ELIMINATED (Let alone be supplanted by Barney! Ugh!). In that infamous
editorial I admitted that erotica is one of the attractions and functions
of a fandom since the mainstream media will not produce it. I even spent
an additional half page decrying the current black and white state of the
debate over erotica which prevents any meaningful conclusions being
reached.
If you're out there Jordan, please forgive me. I can certainly identify
with you now.
>Mundane parents and sticky-fingered youngins could flock to cons and bask in
>furry fandom's kinder, gentler, family-oriented image! Industry reps
>will respect us! Trekkies will envy us! Furry fandom will sweep the
>nation like a great cartoon tsunami! Warner Bros. and Disney would jump
>at the chance to be there, with a table for every character! Wow, just
>imagine HAVING BARNEY AS GUEST OF HONOR AT CONFURENCE EIGHT!!!
>
>By goddess, it'll be wonderful.
Okay, I can tell you're being sarcastic. But I ain't laughing.
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
John Van Stry (jvan...@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
: >Cleaning up the fandom by scapegoating zoos and plushophiles is like the
: >"bad image".
: Rich is not saying that these people should be banned, or gotten rid
: of. (Rich has no problem with Zoo's or Plushies for the most part,
: enough of them come over to his house on a regular basis). The Problem
: is this: Some Zoo's and Some Plushies promote furry fandom and CF as
: a wholly Zoo or Plushie event.
: The article that RKO lynx (or whatever his name is, apologies if I got
: it wrong) did portray CF as mainly a plushie event, and yes - a f*ck fest.
I don't remember seeing Rko_Lnx's article, so you'll have to excuse me if
I don't take your word for it.
: That is what the problem is. CF isn't a plushie or Zoo event. It's an
: anthropomorphic event. And that's how it needs to be promoted as.
Agreed.
: I'm not saying now that people who are into these things should stop,
: or that they shouldn't go to CF, or that they should even stop
: saying that there are lots of like minded people who go to CF, or
: who are in the fandom. I just feel that those people in the fandom
: whose writings and broadcasts are disseminated to the general public
: should act a little more responsibly. This doesn't mean you can't
: talk about the Plushie or Zoo things, or that one reason you go to CF
: (or other Cons) is to see like minded people who go there too.
That's probably the most reasonable thing I've heard so far.
My main issue is that I'm not particularly pleased that furry fans such
as myself are being made to feel unwelcome because we have interests
other than anthropomorphic animals. I don't have sex in public with
animals/plushies/furry fans at cons, I don't act like an obnoxious fanboy
and pester the artists at cons, I don't wander around in the same clothes
for three days without taking a shower at cons, I don't go around saying
furry fandom is about anything other than anthropomorphics... and yet,
there's this feeling that I'm persona non grata. And that's not fun.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Chandler
In article <320017...@huzzah.com>,
Dwight J. Dutton <edi...@huzzah.com> wrote:
>I'm having my arm re-broken & reset next Wednesday (and no, I'm not a
>massochist - it healed wrong)
> I'm going to the same health clinic that treats all of the big name
>athletes. Guess who's doing the operation?
>
> Dr. Richard Chandler.
Ha! That's great. Recently, Roy Pounds sent me a copy of a Reeses Ad
showing four peanut butter cups being eaten like a waning moon. The ad
copy:
"I eat them in Phases" (Richard Chandler, Astronomer)
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
: to come to our cons; big-name animators and writers and artists from the
: major production companies, bestselling authors, professional movie costume
: thousands of people, but tens or hundreds of thousands - why, could start
: holding a con every month, in different parts of the country and beyond -
: 'FurryCon' in a city near you, with special guest appearances from Disney,
: ILM and Barney!
Of course, we couldn't have people running around in collars... that'd be
bad. And this business of silly-stringing people in public would have to
end too, the last thing we need is some poor exec flipping out because
someone got silly string all over his expensive suit... and speaking of
suits, the dealers and artists are gonna need a little more
professionalism in their selection of wardrobe... I mean, Corporate
America isn't going to want to deal with someone shlepping around in a
furry t-shirt and jeans. Hey, with any luck, people outside the fandom
will have a hard time distinguishing us from a convention of Certified
Public Accountants. I can hardly contain my excitement, can you? -:)
: You know, it may not be exactly cute and cuddly (well, actually it is -
: that's the source of the complaints ;-) and furrydom may not be oriented
: to the 'traditional' family, and it may not even be a very popular fandom,
: but I like my furry like it is. With all of furry's 'bad' points, it's
: still here, it's still growing, and families manage to raise kids in it.
My sentiments exactly.
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
D.M. "Quozl" Falk (qu...@netcom.com) wrote:
: If this fandom suddenly became popular, the one thing it would lose,
: first place, is _CREATIVITY_... Furfandom is one of the most creative
: and imaginative fandoms in existance, and if it was mainstreamed, it
Sure, it would lose its creativity... it would become tripe and venal and
insipid... but it'd be MAINSTREAM. The loss of creativity is but a small
price to pay to appease the masses. And after its time in the
mainstream, it'll go the route of so many other things that were
popular with the mainstream at one time like breakdancing, Cabbage Patch
dolls, and Izzy the Olympic Mascot...
: Hatred and bigotry towards _any_ aspect of fandom is the single most
: destructive force within fandom, and is far more a danger than whether
: someone enjoys sex with _toys_ or not...
Very well said. -:)
Herman Miller
>Aside from the nastyness that pops up in this forum, furry fandom is
>really about what is _right_ within humanity: friendship, fun,
>creativity, and getting along. I'm a strong believer in IDIC-- "Infinite
>Diversity in Infinite Combinations", and furry fandom is (normally) a
>prime example of IDIC in action...
You know, that's sort of the impression I got back when I started reading this
group; yes there were flame wars, but they were of the "Disney ripped off
Tezuka" variety. Thankfully, there's still a lot of this spirit in furry
fandom, or I wouldn't have stuck with it as long as I have. But the big furry
civil war that's been building up over the last year was making me feel more
of an outsider.
I also admire the Vulcan philosophy of IDIC, as anyone can tell from the name
of one of my web pages (http://www.io.com/~hmiller/InfiniteDifursity.html).
But hostility is a part of diversity that I'd rather live without. If it were
only possible.
new fairy pictures -->> +----------<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/>----------
|"You have passed a law that will get less respect
Thryomanes (Herman Miller)| than the 55 m.p.h. speed limit dead bang in the
(hmi...@io.com) | middle of the First Amendment." - Steve Russell
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
Richard Chandler (mau...@teleport.com) wrote:
: Yup, he's the embodiment of everything venal and insipid in the Children's
: television industry, with an (un)healthy dose of political correctness.
Now that's curious. Don't you think it's a little strange to be so
appalled by political correctness on the one hand, and espouse your own
version of it by saying not to offend the mundanes on the other hand?
: >By goddess, it'll be wonderful.
: Okay, I can tell you're being sarcastic. But I ain't laughing.
Come now, Rich... [oooo!] ...surely you don't expect us to believe that
you wouldn't welcome Barney with open arms? Sure, he's venal and insipid
-- but he's also popular and mainstream. One might go so far as to say
the reason he's so popular is BECAUSE he's venal and insipid. He's
someone the mainstream can relate to.
It follows, then, that the only way you're going to make furry fandom
popular with the mainstream is to make it venal and insipid. (Well, at
least Brian Henderson will be happy.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Henderson
Per Aspera <ada...@io.com> wrote:
>On 29 Jul 1996, Richard Chandler wrote:
>> Then perhaps you should open your eyes, because people have been saying
>> this with the whole "Lifestyle" bullshit that's sprung up. They've been
>> at a minumum saying that everyone MUST accept these practices because they
>> are a "Part" of the fandom, and that Tolerance is a "Part" of Furry
>> fandom, and that one is bad if one doesn't turn the other cheek each and
>> every time.
>I think they *are* "part" of the fandom, Rich -- just not a "definitive"
>part.
But they are *NOT* part of the fandom, any more than a pedophile who
is also a furry fan can demand that molesting children is part of the
fandom. Would you accept people assuming you are a pedophile because
some pervert insists that it is part of furry fandom? Then you
understand why most people are terribly offended when people assume
that we screw animals or stuffed animals or whatever else. These
things offend us, quite rightfully, and we have a right *NOT* to be
tarred with this brush, especially when it isn't a part of fandom in
the first place.
<rest deleted since I responded to it already>
Scott Alan Malcomson
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen (xyd...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Of course, we couldn't have people running around in collars...that'd be bad.
Yes, it would be. Thank you for admitting that newcomers to fandom who
visit CF will equate collar-wearing with slavery/BSDM...regardless of how
the wearer(s) regard it. Such a policy would help newcomers to "get their
feet wet" before being exposed to the racier side of fandom. Good call,
Xydexx!
---LCD
Fuzzy Fox
Per Aspera <ada...@io.com> writes:
> You *may* still lose a few, but if your "guiding light" is obvious
> enough, it won't be that many. And yes, that means it's important to
> say "Furry != Plushophilia", "Furry !=Zoophilia", "Furry !=Big
> Bodacious Bear Babes With Bouncing Boobs" -- whatever! -- over and
> over.
Geez, listen to yourself. Do you know what you sound like?
"Hey, just ignore all those perverts that you're surrounded by, they're
not really part of this fandom! It's just a coincidence that you see so
much smut around you! Really! Hey, where are you going?? Geez, you
don't *have* to look at it, you know! Just look, there's some squeaky-
clean artwork right over.. um.. gee, where'd I put that... no, that's
not it....."
The point I'm trying to make is that if you have to repeat, over and
over and over, that furry fandom is NOT this, and it's NOT that, and
it's also NOT that, then FURRY FANDOM HAS AN IMAGE PROBLEM.
--
f...@popi.net (Fuzzy Fox) || "If you view your problem closely
sometimes known as David DeSimone || enough, you will recognize yourself
http://www.metronet.com/~fox/ || as part of the problem."
Peter Torkelson
You know, if you have to take to quoting people compleatly out of
context to find someone that "agrees" with you, perhaps you don't
have a leg to stand on, eh?
D.M. Quozl Falk
Ronni Asrouch (rasr...@macromedia.com) wrote:
[...]
: So till someone puts out a _handbook_ of rules and regulations for being
: a Furry Fan, I will continue being Kinky, sick, perverted, twisted,
: insane Dom female pantheress type, and if you want to go ahead an outlaw
: those behaviors, Goody!, then we will just have to start our own new
: fandom.....
May I join you? ;)
D.M. Quozl Falk
: : If this fandom suddenly became popular, the one thing it would lose,
: : which happens to be one thing that _attracts_ me to this fandom in the
: : first place, is _CREATIVITY_... Furfandom is one of the most creative
: : and imaginative fandoms in existance, and if it was mainstreamed, it
: : would end up commercialised...
: Sure, it would lose its creativity... it would become tripe and venal and
: insipid... but it'd be MAINSTREAM. The loss of creativity is but a small
: price to pay to appease the masses. And after its time in the
: mainstream, it'll go the route of so many other things that were
: popular with the mainstream at one time like breakdancing, Cabbage Patch
: dolls, and Izzy the Olympic Mascot...
Exactly!
: : Hatred and bigotry towards _any_ aspect of fandom is the single most
: : destructive force within fandom, and is far more a danger than whether
: : someone enjoys sex with _toys_ or not...
: Very well said. -:)
Thank you! :)
Jonathan 'Chirik' Lang
On 8/2/96 4:30, in message <3201E6...@netscape.com>, Peter Torkelson
<pet...@netscape.com> wrote:
> Scott Alan Malcomson wrote:
> > Karl Xydexx Jorgensen (xyd...@netcom.com) wrote:
> > : Of course, we couldn't have people running around in collars...that'd be
> > bad.
> >
> > Yes, it would be. Thank you for admitting that newcomers to fandom who
> > visit CF will equate collar-wearing with slavery/BSDM...regardless of how
> > the wearer(s) regard it. Such a policy would help newcomers to "get their
> > feet wet" before being exposed to the racier side of fandom. Good call,
> > Xydexx!
>
> You know, if you have to take to quoting people compleatly out of
> context to find someone that "agrees" with you, perhaps you don't
> have a leg to stand on, eh?
For that matter - what's so bad about collars? From the number of
mundanes/relatively mundanes I've seen wearing them around here, I'd say it's
simply the latest up-and-coming fashion thing. (Of course, I'm not one to speak
about fashion. *smirk*)
The worst most people might think when the see a collar is 'Weirdo' or
'different' - Most people aren't ingrained to think 'BSDM' when they see just a
collar, unless there is more 'BDSM' in the dress... (Admittedly, while most of
those at CF just wear collars, a few go into the leather, chains, and more
common trappings, for that full BDSM look...)
And if I sound like I can't carry a train of thought today, forgive me... I'm
at work as I write this, on the phone listening to hold music zapping my mind.
:-/
Penh Gwyn
In article <4trh0o$m...@news1.ni.net>,
>And what exactly do you propose we do? So long as a very vocal group
>of fur fans are insisting that furries are 'skunkfuckers', any effort
>to reclaim our good reputation is doomed to failure. Let's stop those
>who insist that we're all a bunch of perverts, then we can go where
>our efforts will be much more rewarding.
Finally, something we can sink our teeth into! A task! Nay, a quest!
A divine purpose in life! Now all you have to do is post a list of the
names of these people who are proclaiming that all furries are
skunkfuckers and that we're all a bunch of perverts, and we can get to
work on shutting them up! For reference, please also post their exact
quotes, so that we can better tailor our responses to each individual.
Oopsie... just a sec. Um, I just hate myself for thinking this, and
please don't hestitate to roll me in hog fat, slap a stamp on my butt, and
mail me to Djakarta if I'm wrong, but you do have such a list, right? I
mean, you haven't just been mouthing off about these things based on
anecdotal evidence and misinterpretations/misrepresentations of various
folks' posts without ever having actually personally heard anyfur say "All
furries are skunkfuckers" or "We're all a bunch of perverts," right? What
am I saying -- of course you're not! A godzillion apologies. Just post
the list and we'll get right to work. Now, where did I leave those
tongs....
-- Penh Gwyn, Grand Inquisitor Extraordinaire
Chris Torek
In article <N.080296.094829.95@noname> Jonathan 'Chirik' Lang
Well, you know, they chafe. Besides, shirts only have collars so you
can put on a tie, and you know how I feel about ties.
Eh? What? Oh.
Never mind....
[ObSeriousness :) Once upon a time, collars actually *were* a separate
item of clothing, not built into shirts or tunics or what-have-you. I
believe some clerical collars are still this way. So, a collar that is
not attached to a shirt is nothing unusual, in this particular way,
although if you wear one made of leather, some people will draw their
own conclusions from that, whether they are valid or not.]
--the unrestrained elfcat (Silaren on FurryMUCK)
Per Aspera
On 2 Aug 1996, Fuzzy Fox wrote:
> Per Aspera <ada...@io.com> writes:
>
> > You *may* still lose a few, but if your "guiding light" is obvious
> > enough, it won't be that many. And yes, that means it's important to
> > say "Furry != Plushophilia", "Furry !=Zoophilia", "Furry !=Big
> > Bodacious Bear Babes With Bouncing Boobs" -- whatever! -- over and
> > over.
>
> Geez, listen to yourself. Do you know what you sound like?
I make much more sense than you do (see below).
> "Hey, just ignore all those perverts that you're surrounded by, they're
> not really part of this fandom! It's just a coincidence that you see so
> much smut around you! Really! Hey, where are you going?? Geez, you
> don't *have* to look at it, you know! Just look, there's some squeaky-
> clean artwork right over.. um.. gee, where'd I put that... no, that's
> not it....."
I didn't say that -- you've got Out-of-Contexitis, I see.
> The point I'm trying to make is that if you have to repeat, over and
> over and over, that furry fandom is NOT this, and it's NOT that, and
> it's also NOT that, then FURRY FANDOM HAS AN IMAGE PROBLEM.
It's a point you don't make well.
Furry fandom can and does encompass all those things I mention and many
more. But it's not *about* them, it doesn't "equal" them. To say that it
does is to limit the fandom for the people who don't do those things.
Watts Martin was saying to me that it seems to be the case that the people
who don't tend to be scared off if they don't hear that those things are
not what define the fandom.
Does this mean that furry fandom has an image problem? I say that it's
only got a problem if you have a problem with the image you think it has.
I don't. Ergo, as far as I'm concerned there's no image problem.
Per Aspera, Ad Astra * mailto:ada...@io.com * http://www.io.com/~adastra
"It's not a sexual thing; it's a food thing." --Dusty Rancourt
Per Aspera
On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Brian Henderson wrote:
> Per Aspera <ada...@io.com> wrote:
>
> >I think they *are* "part" of the fandom, Rich -- just not a "definitive"
> >part.
>
> But they are *NOT* part of the fandom, any more than a pedophile who
> is also a furry fan can demand that molesting children is part of the
> fandom. Would you accept people assuming you are a pedophile because
> some pervert insists that it is part of furry fandom? Then you
> understand why most people are terribly offended when people assume
> that we screw animals or stuffed animals or whatever else. These
> things offend us, quite rightfully, and we have a right *NOT* to be
> tarred with this brush, especially when it isn't a part of fandom in
> the first place.
Brian, what is it that threatens you so much about this stuff, that you
have to niggerize it? Get over it.
As far as your analogy goes, I have to confess pedophilia is a button for
me; I can't be tremendously rational about it because of direct
experience. On the other hand, I see little to no similarity between
pedophilia and plushophilia, or pedophilia and zoophilia. Whether or not
I engage in these activities (neither of which implies sex, as you seem to
think) doesn't matter -- I don't have a problem with them being part of
fandom. That's because I don't feel threatened by them, I guess; but just
because you do doesn't mean that I or others have to accept your judgment.
Brian Henderson
xyd...@netcom.com (Karl Xydexx Jorgensen) wrote:
<big snip>
>My main issue is that I'm not particularly pleased that furry fans such
>as myself are being made to feel unwelcome because we have interests
>other than anthropomorphic animals. I don't have sex in public with
>animals/plushies/furry fans at cons, I don't act like an obnoxious fanboy
>and pester the artists at cons, I don't wander around in the same clothes
>for three days without taking a shower at cons, I don't go around saying
>furry fandom is about anything other than anthropomorphics... and yet,
>there's this feeling that I'm persona non grata. And that's not fun.
I don't think I've seen a single article that has demanded that people
with interests outside of furry fandom cannot be a member of furry
fandom. If that were true, there could be no fur fans as we *ALL*
have interests outside of furry fandom. However, I can't tell you how
many articles I've seen *CLAIMING* that people are being run out of
the fandom on a rail. It just ain't so.
If, as you have just said, you don't do any of the things that people
are complaining about... the complaints aren't directed at you! Don't
take everything so personally... sheesh.
Dr. Cat
Per Aspera (ada...@io.com) wrote:
: Furry fandom can and does encompass all those things I mention and many
: more. But it's not *about* them, it doesn't "equal" them. To say that it
: does is to limit the fandom for the people who don't do those things.
It seems to me that for every one person who says that their particular
interest "equals" the fandom, there's dozens more who are merely talking
about that same interest without making sure to say "by the way furry
fandom does not 'equal' this interest and you don't have to like it or
participate in it to be a furry fan" every time they say what they like.
If people were only complaining about the small handful of people who say
furry fandom equals or is defined by whatever subcategory they belong to,
there'd be a lot less complaining. 'cause there are fairly few people
claiming anything of the sort.
: Watts Martin was saying to me that it seems to be the case that the people
: who don't tend to be scared off if they don't hear that those things are
: not what define the fandom.
I like the way this is phrased a lot, because it focuses on "if they
don't hear X" rather than on "if they do hear Y". The latter suggests
thinking about ways to stop people from hearing Y - which really isn't
very practical, if Y is a commonly discussed subject or interest.
Whereas the former suggests simply telling more people X - in this case X
being "Furry fandom isn't defined by any of the many interests and
activities that different subsets of the fandom like. And if some of the
more extreme, flamboyant or bizarre parts of the fandom are uninteresting
or even offensive to you, you're more than welcome to avoid them,
participate in just the parts you like, and still be considered part of
the fandom if you want to be. And you can find like-minded individuals
to socialize with if you do so."
Spreading this idea doesn't require insulting anyone. It doesn't require
telling anyone to stop doing what they're doing. It doesn't require
arguing. What it would take is purrhaps a bit more effort at directing
one's efforts at speaking to people who are not currently in the fandom -
whereas most of the time, energy, sound and fury thus far seems to have
been spent on speaking to people who already consider themselves to be
"in" furry fandom. If the focus is on whether or not non-members will
choose to join the fandom or not join it, finding ways to talk to THEM
and tell THEM what the fandom is like would be far more productive.
What would be, purrhaps, an effective thing to tell people here & other
places where most of the audience consists of already-furry-fans...?
It would be not the message "Hey, you sticking-bananas-in-your-ears
crowd, stop sticking the bananas in your ears in the hotel lobby because
it scares people away, do it in a private room!" It would be more along
the lines of "Dear fellow furry fans, banana-eared and non-banana-eared
alike, if you have friends who are potentially interested in the fandom,
or run into curious newcomers at a con or somewhere, here is my
suggestion for some things to say and some sample works to show or
recommend that would provide a good introduction to the fandom."
I'd much rather hear that sort of talk than the finger-pointing and
complaining that so often prevails around here - more often than not with
no constructive suggestions included as potential remedies.
: Does this mean that furry fandom has an image problem? I say that it's
: only got a problem if you have a problem with the image you think it has.
: I don't. Ergo, as far as I'm concerned there's no image problem.
I don't think it has an image problem either. I do think maybe it has an
inferiority complex. :X)
***********************************************************************
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions ** Now available for Windows!
******************************************** ftp.eden.com pub/dspire
Dragonspires is a graphic mud for PCs. ** http://www.eden.com/~cat
***********************************************************************
(Disclaimer: Sticking bananas in your ears is not what furry fandom is
about and should not be taken to define the fandom. It's merely one
thing that some people happen to like to do - and bloody few of them at
that.)
Richard Chandler
In article <32012E...@netscape.com>,
Peter Torkelson <pet...@netscape.com> wrote:
>You know, at the very bottom of the message he is replying to, it says
>that some people would not get the sarcasm and what the message was
>about.
>
>Thanks for providing an example for me! :)
>
>I happen to like that tshirt, perhaps you ought to read that message
>again. Ring Ring, clue phone.
Hey, you mean I can't answer sarcasm with sarcasm without labelling it?
(Well, I DID put a smiley there).
But then I did forget one of the top ten rules of the internet, (I forget
who's law it was) that any form or sarcasm will be completely wasted on
some percentage of the readers.
FitchDonS
On 01 Aug 1996, in msg. <4tql84$9...@news1.ni.net>, Brian Henderson
wrote:
>...
>Don't you want to see CF reach 2000 attendees?
>...
Well... yes, I don't. As a mere Galactic Observer... someone
who's not a creatively participating Furry Fan, what I want may be
immaterial, but I _can_ predict, with considerable confidence,
that if ConFurence reaches an attendance of 2,000 within the next
five (or perhaps even ten) years, less than half of those
"attendees" will be Furry Fans. Oh, most of them, perhaps, will
have some casual interest in Furry/Anthropomorphics, but that
won't be their main reason for attending, and the Furryness of the
con will be seriously (and, IMHO, ruinously) diluted. And, when
you get right down to it, I don't much enjoy cons that have
"attendees"; those that have "participants", or "members", usually
are more interesting and vigorous -- people who just "attend" a
convention tend to be a passive audience, dull and non-creative.
It's happened in Science-Fiction Fandom already. The big, many-
subgroups-under-a-single-giant-umbrella cons are often enjoyable
events, but they have little to do with science-fiction --
for concentration on that, one is limited to ... perhaps ten small
cons; the other 2,000 or so cons each year may be entertaining
social functions, but one really has to work to find general
science-fictional nuggets in them. Do you really want ConFurences
to be like that?
(Note that I consider having a broad range of interests to be
admirable (indeed, I join those who deplore narrow and obsessive
specialization, even though that _is_ what makes people Expert),
but it seems A Good Idea to have at least _one_ narrowly-focused
con for every specific fandom, and for Furry Fandom, ConFurence
(West) seems to be it... so far, though this may change in a few
years.)
Also... Do you really want ConFurences to continue to be held?
I'm less confident about Predicting, here, but I strongly doubt
that the people now producing it are likely to continue doing so
for long if it becomes that big, and that much work. If they _do_
Burn Out, I'm far from confident that there are enough other Furry
Fans competent & able to put on a regular convention that large.
As in Furry Artwork, one might well look for quality, rather than
quantity.
>...
>When your hobbies have the potential to hurt your professional
>life, shouldn't you be concerned?
>...
Indeed one should... and most reasonable and mature people, faced
with such a situation, will simply drop the hobbies that conflict
with their professional goal. For one person (or even a few dozen
people) to attempt to change, significantly, the Nature of a hobby
that is formed and driven by 500 or so people ... seems rationally
impractical. I'm not sure it's doomed to failure, mind you, or
that some attempts shouldn't be made, but it doesn't seem to me to
be reasonable to expect spectacular success in making major changes.
Don Fitch
"A fitch really isn't a 'polecat'; it's more like an ermine."
Richard Chandler
In article <3201E6...@netscape.com>,
Peter Torkelson <pet...@netscape.com> wrote:
>You know, if you have to take to quoting people compleatly out of
>context to find someone that "agrees" with you, perhaps you don't
>have a leg to stand on, eh?
You know, this is pretty funny coming from someone who just posted "Ring
Ring, clue phone." to me for "Missing" your sarcasm. Seems you missed
mine AND Scott's.
Richard Chandler
In article <32024270...@news.teleport.com>,
Mark Freid <can...@qnet.com> wrote:
>I think we should all dress like Ted Sheppard. Not only does he wear
>those suits, but they look really cool, too!
Brian Sutton also wears a suit regularly.
I actually own a suit. I think I need to lose about 20 lbs before I can
wear it again....
Richard Chandler
No Peter, I simply gave up on you when you gave up on me. You first
entered this debate by stating that you didn't want to hear another word
I had to say. And your "issue" is that you'd rather not have the fans
debate any issue. You don't want anyone ragging on any other fans no
matter what they're doing, eh?
Richard Chandler
I think the reason furries react so strongly to the sexual plushophiles is
not so much because there are people who assume that all furries are into
it. I think the reaction is more along the lines of "Good God, if word of
this got out...." If Wired skewered us over T|D, imagine what someone
who really hated Furry Fandom could do with tales of anatomically correct
furry love dolls?
(I was once sent Photographs of such by a fellow who wanted me to run the
pictures in Gallery. I declined.)
Dr. Cat
On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Brian Henderson wrote:
: understand why most people are terribly offended when people assume
: that we screw animals or stuffed animals or whatever else.
The former I certainly understand. As to the latter - well, HAS anyone
actually assumed that you screw stuffed animals, ever? Or are you
complaining about a problem that doesn't actually exist?
Can anyone on alt.fan.furry honestly claim that on some occasion somebody
falsely assumed they screw stuffed animals solely because they were a furry
fan? And even if so, is this a common enough problem to justify strong
public concern, or something that's confined to a handful of rare isolated
instances?
If there's a small subset of the fandom that's causing problems by
behaving in rude and anti-social ways at cons, it doesn't help matters to
"widen the target" and make accusations against people who are NOT
causing any problems as well. Not that accusations are that great a
solution even when accurately directed - proposed solutions beat the heck
out of accusations any day of the week.
Peter Torkelson
Brian Henderson wrote:
>
> xyd...@netcom.com (Karl Xydexx Jorgensen) wrote:
>
> <big snip>
> >My main issue is that I'm not particularly pleased that furry fans such
> >as myself are being made to feel unwelcome because we have interests
> >other than anthropomorphic animals. I don't have sex in public with
> >animals/plushies/furry fans at cons, I don't act like an obnoxious fanboy
> >and pester the artists at cons, I don't wander around in the same clothes
> >for three days without taking a shower at cons, I don't go around saying
> >furry fandom is about anything other than anthropomorphics... and yet,
> >there's this feeling that I'm persona non grata. And that's not fun.
>
> I don't think I've seen a single article that has demanded that people
> with interests outside of furry fandom cannot be a member of furry
> fandom. If that were true, there could be no fur fans as we *ALL*
> have interests outside of furry fandom. However, I can't tell you how
> many articles I've seen *CLAIMING* that people are being run out of
> the fandom on a rail. It just ain't so.
I, however, have seen quite a few articles of that nature posted here.
But never seen any article that has said that you have to be X to be
part of fandom, which you keep claiming you have seen here.
Perhaps it's in your unique definition of the word part that you find
these articles where no-one else has.
And if I thought you, and the few people who preach like you, were
the majority of fandom, I'd feel unwelcome too.
But I don't. I know your nothing but a tiny whining minority that has
no cause other than to redefine words in the english language to suit
your agenda.
However, what I am, is rather tired of it.
People with sexual/gun/zoophile/whatever interests, who find them something
they like shown in a "anthropomorphic" fassion, _ARE_ a subset of
this fandom. In fact, they are a rather large subset. And a subset
is a "part of".
Perhaps what you define as a fandom is the pure interest? If you want
to weed out the subsets, thats what you have to do, define it as
"PURELY" anthropomorphic. Not furries with guns, penises or stuffies.
Well, by that definition, none of us would belong to that fandom,
becuse I think that all of us see something to be represented WITH
anthropomorphics. Be that a story, an emotion in art, whatever. I see
very few peices of art that are just about being "anthropomorphic".
Rather, I see a lot of art that is showing "X" with the medium of
"anthropomorphics".
So if you deny things expressed through anthropomorphics are a part
of the FANDOM, then you deny anyone is a part of the fandom.
I don't buy that. I don't think that most of the people here buy that.
And it's sure not worth all our time to be arguing about what this
word means to you rather than addressing real issues, which people
seem to dodge like the plague.
You know, things like:
* Dealer and Artist's Alley practices about the display of non-pg
work.
* Thoughs on the best materials and web pages to show people new
to fandom.
* Art show practices, defining what goes in or not to the NC-17
area.
* Etc.
How about we talk about practical comprimizes for those, rather
than purify the use of a word to a meaning only you seem to understand?
Erma Felna is a part of furry fandom.
Tank vixens are a part of furry fandom.
Foxes masterbating in chains is a part of furry fandom.
Disney movies (not disney itself!) is a part of furry fandom.
People interested in anthropomorphics are a part of furry fandom.
They are all anthropomorphics. That is an inclusive word, and a very
broad word, not a narrow or restrictive. It covers a lot of materials.
A lot of interests, when expressed through this medium.
And I think most rational people can figure out the simple statment
here that each part does not necisarly interact with other parts.
Thats a part of life. Especialy in any group of people with a common
set of interests, they will alwase have other divergent interests,
and those will flavor their perception of the common interest.
So lets get down to business, shall we?
Peter Torkelson
Richard Chandler wrote:
I simply will not respond to any other part of that last post,
other than this one, last sentance:
> You don't want anyone ragging on any other fans no
> matter what they're doing, eh?
Yea, I think that I would agree with that. Is that so wrong?
Discuss and debate, rather than rag? I suppose that is asking too
much.
If what you are here for is to "rag" on other furs, then perhaps
I've been wasting my breath compleatly.
Peter Torkelson
You know, I've never responded to one of my own posts, before now,
alwase considered it silly and rude. But. Hey. There are alwase
exceptions.
Or perhaps I'm being silly and/or rude.
Reading those words again. I've relized just how they have changed
my views of certain people, and this so called discussion as a whole.
One sentance. One thought. One truth about this all.
For some of the people I've been trying to discuss this with, make
points through irony and sarcasm and just plain facts... This is how
they see things.
This is a place to rag.
Not on even ideas, or governments, but on people. Individual people
they disagree with.
I QUIT.
I've found myself growing so upset at some people's words that I've
let some of my posts get personal. Honestly? I apologize to those
individuals for that. No matter what they said, they don't deserve
personal attacks.
Even if they have made them.
I don't belive it should be done.
You are 100% right, Richard. I don't want anyone ragging on other fans,
no matter what they are doing. Now I said it. You can quote me on that.
I'll even go further. I don't think people ought to rag on other people.
Not just fans. But people.
You can quote me on that too.
Hello to all you in the bleachers. Got room for one more? My abestos
suit is running thin, and my hose has started spitting flame instead
of water.
It's time for me to climb those stairs.
D.M. Quozl Falk
Dr. Cat (c...@eden.com) wrote:
[rest of great article snipped]
: I don't think it has an image problem either. I do think maybe it has an
: inferiority complex. :X)
Funny, isn't that something I've been saying?
....Quozl!
)"O Killfiled One...")
David G. Bell
In article <4u6lnj$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
fitc...@aol.com "FitchDonS" writes:
I remember when I first came across the figures for the sizes of the
natural structures in human society, and it struck me how well they
coincided with my experiences of school, and my reading of military
history. The smallest group, the extended family, is common to Mankind
and several other primate species, and the group size is a balance
between what the environment can support, and what is large enough to
tolerate unexpected death. Roughly 25 people.
The next level, the clan, seems to require speech. According to theory,
it comes out of the social structures possible with the one-to-many
structure of speech, compared to the one-to-one equivalents in other
species, such as grooming -- somewhere around 125 people.
And the third level, the dialectal tribe, of roughly 600 people, meeting
for a few days a year, is partly a consequence of genetics. It is big
enough that the new adults have a choice of partners who are not too
closely related.
I don't think it a coincidence that the three sizes compare quite well
to the platoon, the company, and the battalion, or that conventions
change dramatically as they grow beyond the limits of the dialectal
tribe.
Looked at in that light, it is possible to argue that many of the
divisions withing fandom have arisen because a group got too big, snd
the group siezed on the nearest convenient excuse to create a necessary
division. And it looks like the same is happening within Furry fandom,
perhaps encouraged by the nature of some of the excuses available to us.
But I wouldn't try to push the analogy too far, since conventions are
not made up of groups of about 25 people who live together. Our modern
society is very different, with many overlapping communities, real and
virtual, for an individual to hold status in.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
Peter Torkelson (pet...@netscape.com) wrote:
: People interested in anthropomorphics are a part of furry fandom.
: And it's sure not worth all our time to be arguing about what this
: word means to you rather than addressing real issues, which people
: seem to dodge like the plague. You know, things like:
: to fandom.
I think the "What Is A Furry?" page at
http://www.sandiego.sisna.com/captpakrat/furry1.htm is among the best
I've seen, as well as http://www.oup.edu/~ariggs/furfaq.html
I'm probably going to add a link to one of them from my own furry page at
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/furrymck.htm
I also think Rich Chandler's sketchbook etiquitte file should be standard
reading material for anyone new to the fandom.
I think it would be really cool if a bunch of furries got together and
collaborated on a "Welcome To Furry Fandom" guide for newbies that would
include the above information, which could then be distributed at furry
conventions by people who wanted to do something more productive than
fight with other furry fans.
(So... who's gonna join me?) -:)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn-http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/index.html
Furry Code v1.2: FEZ2c/FXu[inflatable]2dms A C+ D H++ M+
P+ R T+++ W Z++ Sm+ RLGP a c++w d+ e+ f+ h+++ iwf++ p-- sm+
Brian Henderson
Per Aspera <ada...@io.com> wrote:
>Brian, what is it that threatens you so much about this stuff, that you
>have to niggerize it? Get over it.
Nothing in particular, it's just that I'm trying to find elements that
most of us are going to consider wrong. Yes, I know that having sex
with stuffed animals and bestiality is sort of questionable in this
crowd but the vast majority of adults the world over would consider it
wrong. The problem I'm having is that in furry fandom, I'm having a
real problem finding things that furries would agree, in general, are
wrong.
Sad, isn't it?
>As far as your analogy goes, I have to confess pedophilia is a button for
>me; I can't be tremendously rational about it because of direct
>experience. On the other hand, I see little to no similarity between
>pedophilia and plushophilia, or pedophilia and zoophilia. Whether or not
>I engage in these activities (neither of which implies sex, as you seem to
>think) doesn't matter -- I don't have a problem with them being part of
>fandom. That's because I don't feel threatened by them, I guess; but just
>because you do doesn't mean that I or others have to accept your judgment.
I see no connection between any of them other than the fact that the
vast majority of human beings would see all of them as wrong. Of
course, I never claimed that any of them were related to each other,
did I? I only said they were examples of things that we, in furry
fandom, should not tolerate as part of the fandom, real or claimed.
Paul Bennett
I would suggest that such a quide should also be posted in the furry
newsgroups periodically. I rather suspect that a large percentage of
furries would have little opportunity to make it to a con.
Paul
Gary Breuckman
In article <lontraDv...@netcom.com>, Lontra <lon...@netcom.com> wrote:
>BHen...@kirk.microsys.net (Brian Henderson) wrote:
>
>Xydexx isn't alone in feeling persona non grata here. All of a sudden,
>I find my personal form of furry fun being the object of insinuation,
>attack, and mockery. I used to think I had a happy home in Furrydom, but
>the landlords don't seem to like all those plushies I keep in my room,
>and that worries me. It's the landlords' house, after all, not mine...
But you are a co-owner of _this_ 'house' as is everyone else here.
I certainly welcome your posts a lot more than the 'make-money-fast,'
or worse yet 'send me money' or the 'everyone is better off than me'
posts that are way off-topic, or the one-line quips that claim to be
on-topic but don't say anything worthwhile.
Please continue your posts, they are furry and *I* like them.
--
pu...@netcom.com
Terry Knight
In article <32072A...@netscape.com> pet...@netscape.com writes:
>Hello to all you in the bleachers. Got room for one more? My abestos
>suit is running thin, and my hose has started spitting flame instead
>of water.
>
>It's time for me to climb those stairs.
"No problem mate, come on up. There's room for all here," the fox smiles.
"Just watch yer footing - there's still a lot of that air-delivered
popcorn lyin' about on the ground. I hear the butter drop is coming in a
few hours."
MayFurr whispers conspiratorily, "Hey, can I interest you in a Vegemite
sandwich? :)"
--
Terry Knight | MayFurr@FurryMUCK | may...@vixen.southern.co.nz
=======================================================================
"But starting from the other end you had an animal with everything
an animal should have... and added to all these, as though Paradise
had never been lost and earliest dreams were true, the charm of
speech and reason" - C.S. Lewis | FurCode 1.2: FCF3m/C3fmd
A++ C*>+ D H? M+ P R T? W Z++ S# RLCT a cdw++$ d e+ f h+++ i+>wf p sm*
Dr. Cat
Richard Chandler (mau...@teleport.com) wrote:
: I think the reaction is more along the lines of "Good God, if word of
: this got out...." If Wired skewered us over T|D, imagine what someone
: who really hated Furry Fandom could do with tales of
Again I see this notion that furry fandom is "in the public eye". I
think people who hate furry fandom have pretty much failed to ever get
any major amount of press coverage or public interest - as have people
who love furry fandom. There just isn't much press on it at all, most
people don't know it exists and probably wouldn't care if they did know.
I don't know if "skewered" is the right term for the Wired article either
- their attitude seemed to be more "there's lots of sex there and that's
neat" rather than "there's lots of sex there and that's so horrid and
morally wrong". People's problems with the article were mainly that it
misrepresented what the Muck was like, not that it said the Muck was bad.
If you want to see "skewered" dig up an ultra-conservative newsletter or
a supermarket tabloid and watch them slam someone.
***********************************************************************
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions ** Now available for Windows!
******************************************** ftp.eden.com pub/dspire
Dragonspires is a graphic mud for PCs. ** http://www.eden.com/~cat
***********************************************************************
(Disclaimer: Arguing about whether the general public thinks we're all
perverts or not *does* define the entirety of what furry fandom is about,
and... Oh wait, that's not right, no it doesn't. Never mind.)
David Michael Schneberger
Lontra (lon...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Xydexx isn't alone in feeling persona non grata here. All of a sudden,
: I find my personal form of furry fun being the object of insinuation,
: attack, and mockery. I used to think I had a happy home in Furrydom, but
: the landlords don't seem to like all those plushies I keep in my room,
: and that worries me. It's the landlords' house, after all, not mine...
I hope to make a single comment or two here before going back to
the sidelines. As I have friends that argue both one way or the other on
this I've stayed firmly off in the wings.
But, after reading the flame wars on all this I think this one
line applies very well to what can be vaguely determined as both sides of
the arguement (quite frankly the points of contention seem to shift and
mutate so much its hard to follow at times).
To the side that some suggest want to either "attack" or "remove
them" from Furrydom (accusations which in listening I have found
personally to be silly) they can also feel like their own personal form
of furry fun is under attack. There are some that may like things like
simple innocent no-sexual furs, some that like cartooning, some that like
stories about gene-engineered furs, or using morphs in ways to express
their artistic/writing skills, or those that just like seeing and reading
about all these. They can feel threatened just as much when someone goes
off and says "Well, its also about zoo's, plushies, purple mangos,
WHATEVER." They also have landlords, those sometimes being the friends
they live with that can see this and say "You're into that?"
**shrug** As a neutral point I would mention that while some are
saying that they now feel worried about the mockery they get, or expect
to get, that it is those same fears that may be compelling those that you
argue against.
I HAD hopes that this battle would die down or some partial
resolution would come about but its quite obvious that most are so firmly
entrenched in their points that this is now more an excercise in personal
snipes, winning "points" for good arguements, and creative edit work of
quotes. Unless I get really compelled I now resign from this on the same
day I post to it. Please, I hope that at the end nobody harbors any grudges.
Take care eh
David Schneberger
Terminotaur on FurryMuck
Dr. Cat
David G. Bell (db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Looked at in that light, it is possible to argue that many of the
: the group siezed on the nearest convenient excuse to create a necessary
: division. And it looks like the same is happening within Furry fandom,
: perhaps encouraged by the nature of some of the excuses available to us.
This is a very interesting way to look at it. I've actually seen another
form of this, where various types of groups like mailing lists, muds,
etc. have deliberately taken action to either slow down growth or try to
cut it off entirely. I came to the conclusion that it was out of a sort
of instinct that the group would become less "comfortable" if it got too
big, and that after all it already had enough people to satisfy the need
for contact with like-minded folks for most of the members.
Can a group with thousands of people feel a strong "group identity", a
unity, a sense of increased comfort around any other member just because
they're in the group too? Perhaps not. When you get that big the side
interests, the personality quirks, etc. really are going to vary way too
widely for everyone to be comfortable around everyone else. So I do
think that splitting into subgroups is the most natural thing in the
world - whether it's 7 fans who want to start the "we draw furries baking
blueberry muffins" SIG, or 700 who form the "foxes are neat" club.
I just wish people wouldn't get so upset about the need to divide things
up into comfortable subgroups, acting as if it is "wrong" or "disgusting"
or "icky" that there happen to be subsets of the fandom that have
extremely different tastes. I suppose it just mirrors the larger society
that we live in - where many people faced with differences of opinion
over politics, religion, or morality would rather assume the other person
is reprehensible and vile instead of simply "agreeing to disagree" and
leaving each other alone.
***********************************************************************
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions ** Now available for Windows!
******************************************** ftp.eden.com pub/dspire
Dragonspires is a graphic mud for PCs. ** http://www.eden.com/~cat
***********************************************************************
(Disclaimer: Being a dreadful bore and rambling on and on is not a
prerequisite for membership in furry fandom. While that may seem extremely
common, if you actually happen to be interesting you're quite welcome to act
that way here.)
Dennis Lee Bieber
In article <4u9kr9$4...@news1.ni.net> BHen...@kirk.microsys.net (Brian Henderson) writes:
>
> Nothing in particular, it's just that I'm trying to find elements that
> most of us are going to consider wrong. Yes, I know that having sex
> with stuffed animals and bestiality is sort of questionable in this
> crowd but the vast majority of adults the world over would consider it
> wrong. The problem I'm having is that in furry fandom, I'm having a
> real problem finding things that furries would agree, in general, are
> wrong.
>
> Sad, isn't it?
>
attitude compared to the rest of the world?
Furries have already diverged from the rest of the world just
by their primary interest...
Though if you really did run a survey, you will likely find
that pedophilia is denounced...
To me, invoking the rest of the world is meaningless -- for
you may find subgroups that object to one behavior but not another...
If two subroups of three object to a given behavior than "the majority
of the rest of world" can be declared objectionable.
Groups A, B, C (equal sized); and behaviors a, b, c...
behavior\group A B C
a OK NO NO
b NO OK NO
c NO NO OK
By your logic, the "majority of the world" finds ALL three
behaviors to be objectionable or wrong. Yet, EACH behavior is
acceptable to one third of the world.
Heck, if you're Roman Catholic, the only type of sex that is
NOT wrong is that with a legal spouse for the sole purpose of
producing a child.
--
> ============================================================ <
> wulf...@netcom.com | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG <
> D.Bi...@GEnie.com | FurryMUCK and FurToonia <
> ============================================================ <
> PGP key: Finger wulf...@netcom.com <
> Home Page: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/wu/wulfraed/wulfraed.htm <
Dr. Cat
Brian Henderson (BHen...@kirk.microsys.net) wrote:
: Nothing in particular, it's just that I'm trying to find elements that
: most of us are going to consider wrong.
: The problem I'm having is that in furry fandom, I'm having a
: real problem finding things that furries would agree, in general, are
: wrong.
Nothing could be easier. "Murdering lots of total strangers at a
shopping mall". I think the vast majority of furry fans would agree
that's wrong and that no furry fan should run out and do it. I could
easily rattle off half a dozen other examples, but I'd think most people
would prefer I didn't.
Which leads naturally to the question I want to ask - why is "finding
things furries agree to be wrong" a goal you would want to choose, and
put time and effort into? It seems to me "finding things most furries
enjoying seeing and/or talking about" could and should be a more common
and popular goal. You know, popular furry movies, comics, novels, that
kinda thing. Why would tracking down something that bothers, worries, or
upsets as many furries as possible be a desirable thing to do? Much less
talking about it once you've identified it? Seems to me if you were to
say "I determined that 93% of furries think that human cannibalism is
wrong and find that the subject makes them very uncomfortable" then the
natural response is for 93% of the readers here to go "Yes, and now you
have brought up the subject and I am feeling uncomfortable thinking about
it. Thanks for nothing."
Probably some folks are feeling uncomfortable right now because I
mentioned cannibalism. Sorry, folks. I promise I won't ever bring it up
here again.
***********************************************************************
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions ** Now available for Windows!
******************************************** ftp.eden.com pub/dspire
Dragonspires is a graphic mud for PCs. ** http://www.eden.com/~cat
***********************************************************************
(Disclaimer: Talking pleasantly about furry art, comics, zines, stories
and stuff like that is NOT the totality of what furry fandom is about.
If you would rather argue about whether it is or isn't morally wrong to
do kinky things with stuffed animals, or any other subject, arguing about
stuff is accepted by many as a common, acceptable, or to some even a
desirable subset of what takes place within the fandom. *sigh*)
Terry Knight
In article <4ud69a$k...@status.gen.nz> gra...@iconz.co.nz writes:
>
>Terry Knight (may...@vixen.southern.co.nz) wrote:
>: MayFurr whispers conspiratorily, "Hey, can I interest you in a Vegemite
>: sandwich? :)"
>
>"Mayfurr..." Lindgold hisses from across the way. "Remember what happened
>the last two times you tried that...?" he says, reminding the fox about
>Amara stomping the first sandwich into compost, and Snorty vapourising
>the second. "You'd better put your lunchbox away before either of them
>notice."
"Oh... yeah, right, okay..." mumbles MayFurr, hastily burying his lunchbox
under a particularly deep drift of popcorn, and casting sidelong glances
at the dragon and vixen. He whispers back to Lindgold. "I think it's okay
this time - they didn't see me :)"
The fox picks up a handful of popcorn and munches on it. "Hmmmm... needs
salt..."
Cybskunk
OK, here's my observation:
A couple weeks ago I was at a beach party get-together with local
Babylon-5 fans. After the usual talk that goes on at such events
("Insanity is part of these times, Vir. You must learn to embrace the
madness!"), I let slip that I did furry art. The other Babylonians
immediately assumed that I:
1) Was homosexual (full or part-time) and/or
2) Fucked animals and/or
3) Was heavily into hardcore porn.
It took me about half an hour to debunk these impressions and get back to
B-5. No matter what flames and rants go on in this thread, that IS the
impression and associations of Furry outside of the Furry Curtain.
Cybskunk
Another observation:
>Thank you for admitting that newcomers to fandom who
>visit CF will equate collar-wearing with slavery/BSDM...regardless of
>how the wearer(s) regard it.
This is hearsay observation, but I have run across the following story
four or five times (including two independent con reports in 'Brazzle):
1) Furfan has mundane friends who are interested in "furries" with a
small "f".
2) Furfan invites/takes mundane fringeFurry friends to Confurence.
3) FringeFurry friends are so turned off by the in-your-face
<fill-in-the-blank: Gay/ Bestiality/Plushiefucking/B&D/S&M/Porn> stuff
they see at the con they are completely turned off to anthropomorphics and
want absolutely nothing to do with it afterwards.
Cybskunk
(one of the forgotten "old guard" of early furry fandom)
Cybskunk
>>I think we should all dress like Ted Sheppard. Not only does he
>> wear those suits, but they look really cool, too!
Ted Sheppard and Bruce Rowe -- both dress "Forties retro" at cons. Much
more elegant than collars and G-strings, which leads me to another
observation (hey, you invited them in the thread title!):
A lot of "retro" look has to do with glamor and elegance, two things we
seem to have lost in current society (Fur, fan, and mundane). Whereas the
"retro" era had glamor and romance, we seem to have only grunge and
spooge.
A lot of the image of the '30s and '40s came from Hollywood, which at the
time was under the tight censorhip of the Hays Office. This censorship
had one positive influence on movies and the media image they spawned:
You had to put effort and creativity into "beating the censor." Instead
of taking the easy way out with tits in the face, you had to titillate
with the cut and style of relatively full-coverage costumes; instead of
taking the easy way out with plunging organs, you had to develop an
elaborate romantic language of sexual symbolism. Instead of splashing the
audience with on-screen splatter, you had to use the classic theater
tradition of "decorum" -- cut away from the violence and suggest it in
such a way as to let the viewer's imagination take over and do the rest.
Personally, I follow these traditions in my furry art -- my furries are
fully-clothed and have a stong "glamour" index. Maybe a return to this
style (and publicizing it on the Outside) would help the image of furry
art. I do know that furry art gets the best mundane reaction if the
mundane has not been previously exposed to furry fandom -- in such
situations, the worst I've gotten has been puzzlement.