User talk:68.99.136.141

Hi there! Thanks for your modifications to Furrlough and Barr Wars. Our policy is not to have credit on article pages, and so I have removed the note you made at the end of your submission. However, anyone who checks the history will see who made those edits (I placed your name on the page for this IP, so if people click on that they will find out who did it). You could also register an account to get a more permanent and easily-identifyable form of credit.

As for your edits to Burned Furs, it is good that we are getting your perspective on things. It may be that they will be changed in the future, as it does now seem to speak more to the Burned Fur point of view than any other, and while we seek to represent rather than hold a particular view. Nevertheless, your contributions are still very much worthwhile, as they bring new facts to the article, as well as the viewpoint.

Regardless of the above, welcome to WikiFur! :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 06:57, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Burned Furs/Furrlough/Barr Wars Etc

Hey there, just wanted to say thanks for the consideration...yes, I admit to being biased somewhat in favor of the Burned Furs, but then again I was in the thick of all that. At one point, 10% of AFF traffic was just me. Fielding attacks from people bound and determined to paint the lot of us as anti-gay, pro-Nazi psuedofascists became an all-time job. So I'm a bit biased there. -;>

Also glad to have been able to add to the other bits: again, I'm a long-time furfan (about 12 years going now) and have witnessed or been directly involved in a lot of this stuff. --68.99.136.141

No problem! I have the opposite situation - I know very little of the history of the furry fandom. Fortunately, I can rely on those within it to fill in the details or adjust things if they are incorrect - all I have to do is help them with the technical issues of doing it, or (occasionally) mediate when they cannot agree. It seems to work out, so far at least. :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 07:11, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I do need to point out, though, that Burned Fur was never, at any time, "anti furry". We were anti-bad-press. Our entire point was that using common sense and a little discretion would solve pretty much the entire problem. We did not advocate "running people out of the fandom". But there are easily a dozen posts to WikiFur alleging various acts or intents on our part which exist only in the minds of those making the allegations.

For example, the section on FAASA refers to that group's desire to "remove bestialists and zoophiles from Furry Fandom", then goes on to suggest the problem FAASA raises is one of "sinful" activities --- as opposed to out and out illegal activities, which bestiality and zoophilia are. There's no issue of "sin" here; it's a crime being talked about. For that matter, Burned Fur never talks about "sin" at all nor does it couch any of its arguments in religious terms, yet the article on FAASA claims that "all Anti-Furries" of the period shared the religious angle. In the following section, both FAASA and Burned Fur are specifically listed as Anti-Furry (as opposed to just being referred to in the previous link) --- which is essentially an advocation that bestiality and zoophilia ARE part and parcel of Furry Fandom.

I will state, however, that complaints were in fact lodged with the Alt.* hierarchy regarding alt.lifestyle.furry, expressly because threads promoting the bestiality and zoophile lifestyles appeared there. The promotion of illegal activities is against the Usenet charter, so we simply informed the Usenet authorities that the system was being abused. They warned the posters, who took down the thread, and that was that...just as it's supposed to work whenever anyone anywhere on the Usenet abuses it to promote illegality. No one contacted any carriers to have the group yanked, and it would have been an extensive waste of time and effort to even try calling a tiny percentage of the necessary carriers.

All in all, it looks like the article was written by someone on the opposing side. For example, it's true that "only" two members of the fandom were defending the group --- which amounted to any given standard for an AFF flamewar; you generally only had two or three dedicated people per side, with maybe a handful of kibitzers chiming in at odd intervals. Manawolf's linked "counteressay" starts right off attacking "hate and intolerance" --- against bestiality and zoophilia.

Although Manawolf makes clear she understands the issue is ONLY over these two issues, she calls for "an effort to understand and accept". This is illegal activity. It can't lawfully be condoned. She appears to be ignorant of this, but ironically throws in the accusation that FAASA is "ignorant". Of what, she doesn't say. She DOES, however, argue in a separate essay for the presumption of morality concerning bestiality. Assuming one were to accept this at face value, it still wouldn't address the illegality. She also claims that no one's ever assaulted her idea of trying to moralize the act of sexually brutalizing an animal, which is false: I have. She simply ignored it.

These errors and presumptions should be corrected.

Whew. That's a long post. Here's an equally long reply:

Firstly, I would say that overall (and in my view), the Burned Furs were, in fact, intolerant of specific people or groups who considered themselves within the furry fandom. If their members were tolerant, they would have tolerated the state of affairs. The point is that they did not wish to tolerate it, and instead called for action to dissuade people from representing themselves as members of the fandom - or optionally, to create a whole new fandom without them. When there are documented examples of Squee Rat using phrases like "nutballs", "expel every last wacko from the fanbase" and "twitching crack babies", it is hard to believe that at least some Burned Furs did not, in fact, want these people to leave the fandom. This is not a case of just getting them to be more discreet. It is a case of not associating with them at all.

I understand your position regarding illegality being the motivation (although, again, the above statements suggest that there's a certain about of moral judgement in there as well). It is a valid concern. However, I disagree with your statements that seem to imply that zoophilia (or, indeed, bestiality) is universally an illegal act. It is true to say that it is illegal in many areas, either specifically or under the guise of animal abuse (though I'd say that abuse would have to be proven).

It is possible that the contributors who wrote the article up until that point were "against" the Burned Fur movement, or at least saw it in a detrimental light. This may simply reflect the average community view (which is not to say that it is the correct state for the article, but it is understandable).

I'm not sure where you get the "against the usenet charter" from. Each newsgroup has its own charter - the alt.lifestyle.furry one is here. I agree that such posts might be against acceptable use policies.

I can't comment on Manawolf's actions, either, as I do not know the history behind them. If you can provide her stated assertions and the evidence refuting them (assumably you made your statements at a prior date to hers), that might be useful information. Note that WikiFur isn't intended to continue conflicts, it might have relevance to the Burned Fur article, if she was involved with the Burned Furs.

I would however say that an argument for the morality of bestiality is also an argument against the illegality of acts related to them, and that if the essay were accepted by readers it would address both moralistic and legalistic dilemma. That is, if people accepted that such acts were morally justified, they would be in support of repealing such laws as there were (and if such laws existed, they wouldn't be supported). Thus, the article attempts to indirectly affects the legal view by appealing to a change in the moralistic values. This is exactly what she means by "an effort to understand and accept". It is the same argument that marijuana users might make, despite the fact that in some areas the use of marijuana is illegal - that it shouldn't be, and that people should accept that some people want to use it.

To take a more related example, it might be illegal to have sex with another person of the same gender, but perhaps it should be legal to advocate it, in the hopes that if people agree with your right to do so, you won't get a bad reputation anymore. Obviously bestiality/zoophilia is not at this point yet, but then nor was homosexuality 60 years ago. Opinions can change, though laws are slower to do so. --GreenReaper^(talk) 09:05, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

---

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet, or who does not use it. We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify him/her. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.