| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

View
 

Who Dealt This Mess

Page history last edited by PBworks 15 years, 5 months ago

We're not the ones causing trouble for "Furry" fandom.

 

by Peter Schorn


 

Two accusations - both of them untrue - have been made against Burned Fur:

 

1) "The Burned Furs are causing bad publicity for furry fandom by talking so much about its problems!"

2) "The Burned Furs are causing the flamewars in alt.fan.furry!"

 

The first can be refuted by looking at a history of furry fandom's appearances in the media:

 

March 1994: WIRED magazine publishes "Johnny Manhatten Meets the Furry Muckers" :

"Take FurryMuck, for instance, 'the first anthropomorphic MUD.' It makes LambdaMOO look like the Young Republicans. People describe themselves as furry cuddly animals; more times than not, they have furry cuddly animal sex."

(full text at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.03/muds.html)

March 1998: British magazine LOADED reports on ConFurence 9 (the fandom's largest gathering), calling it "a roll call…of people who would be some way below Louise Woodward on a list of potential babysitters." The article also contains an extensive interview with no less than three anonymous "zoophiles"

(full text at http://x7.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=333133401 )

August 1998: The San Francisco Bay Guardian reports on Furry Fandom, interviewing, among others, "…a 36-year-old self-professed 'plushophile' with an extensive Web page detailing his fascination with the plush nimals that he frequently 'boinks.' Yes, that means what it sounds like"

(full text at http://www.sfbg.com/SFLife/32/47/furries.html)

September 1998: The BURNED FUR movement is inaugurated by ["Squee Rat"] with the publication of her "Furry Manifesto" on her website.

 

 

Now I ask you: how was Burned Fur responsible for the articles in WIRED, LOADED or SFBG? How could it have been responsible for bad PR about the fandom that came out before in some cases WELL before Burned Fur was formed?

 

As for the second accusation, let's use DejaNews to look at some posts made to alt.fan.furry, again BEFORE Burned Fur came along:

 

July 8, 1998, article <6rklr8$bqs$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>:

"But seriously. Keee-ripes. I dig a.f.f. Since the local sci fi shop moved, and I'm too lazy to go down there, I haven't been able to watch this much fan-fighting since momentary DM/geeky fanboy flare-ups over ideals, artwork, and even pant leg sizes on G.U.R.P.S. day."

August 7, 1998, article <35CA86B3.3ED3@nolocale.com>:

"And lastly, 'spoogetooners': A bunch of dirty fan-art, puddles of spooge everywhere, Almost completely Anarchical structure, and everyone having a grand-old-time wallowing in their own crapulence."

 

August 21, 1998, article <35DCD86B.3B1F@spammy.aol.com>:

"HA! TRUST? The guy who COULDN'T ARGUE HIS WAY OUT OF A PAPER BAG without MAKING THINGS UP ABOUT HIS OPPONENT is extolling the VIRTUES OF TRUST?"

"The guy who CONTINUES TO MAKE SLANDEROUS, WHOLLY FICTITIOUS CLAIMS, SANS ALL EVIDENCE AND REASON, is actually pretending he CARES if I'M being FORTHRIGHT or JOKING??"

 

I think it's obvious from the foregoing that there have always been flamewars on AFF; Burned Fur's absence wouldn't change that fact.

 

The bottom line is this: Furry Fandom's problems should be blamed on those who cause those problems, not on the folks who speak out against them. Likewise, flamewars are caused by flamers, not by beliefs or opinions.

 

Thanks for stopping by, and thanks especially for taking time to get the facts.

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.