HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mauser@INTERCON.COM (Richard Chandler)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry
Subject: Re: Furry Famdom--present and future
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:22:18 GMT

Noel Sez:
> 	After reading the wonderful post about Furry Famdom History,

Thanks for the complement.  I'm beginning to think there's more to the story 
though, and I think I'm gonna get in contact with some people and try to put 
together a real history.  Hmmm.  Anyone who's been at this for a long time 
wanna send me their impressions?

> 	The Future of furry fandom is close at hand.  You see, while there are 
> distinct groups, communication is maintained through networked BBS systems 
> and of course, Internet.  As more and more fur fans become net.connected-- 
> where you live is going to become less and less important.

Because there are a lot of fans on the net, does not mean that the majority 
of fans are on the net.  In fact, a great number do not have computers, and 
can't afford them.  If Furrydom tried to restrict itself to the net, it would 
become that much less accessible.

> 	I predict that by the end of the century, so many of us will have 
> access not only to Internet, but to high-quality scanning equipment and 
> desktop publishing.  I forsee the day when somone can publish a fanzine 
> entirely by computer.  From having contributors send a central person 
> scanned artwork and stpories, to possibly assembling the package and 
> mailing it out over the net.  The technology is there, it just needs to be
> utilized.

Not until they have a way of enforcing copyright on data files.  Maybe in the 
old days people LIKED to have as many 'roxes of their art circulating as 
possible, but now everyone guards their rights jealously.  People generally 
don't copy entire 'zines for other people, but when it's a matter of mailing 
a file....

[...]
> Thank you, Mr Chandler, for opening my eyes

Hey, just sharing my views....

Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry
From: noel@umbc2.umbc.edu
Subject: RE: We *are* taking ourselves too seriously
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore County
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 18:56:20 GMT

	Thank you for the thought-provoking reply and for helping me see what 
is going on.
	I have seen examples of when artists would draw each others 
characters, as well as the "I'll draw something for you if you'll draw 
something for me" situations.
	Although I did not see a major proliferation of art books at Philcon, 
I do know quite a few people carry them.  I think the only person I respect 
for how they get art is a non-artist.  But he *is* something of an archivist 
and his manners can only be described as excellent.
	Now, I beleive every fan has a right to own and carry around an art 
book and have reasonable expectations about getting something drawn in them.  
But I also beleive that an artist has a right to ask for some money, a favor, 
or flatly refuse if neither is supplied.
	If a person is well-mannered and asks an artist nicely if they will 
put something in their books--then maybe the artist will be nice enough to 
forego compensation for his time and effort becuase its what he likes doing.  
However, shoving a book in somone's face and saying "Draw something for me" is 
not a good way to win freinds and influence people.
	I personally do not have an art book.  If I want somone to draw 
something for me I either supply individual sheets of paper, or ask if they 
can draw something for me when they have time AFTER a convention.  Its not 
often I do this, and becuase I am broke and cannot pay.  I tend to either do 
favors in hopes of getting artwork, or not asking at all.
	 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry,rec.arts.sf.misc
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Furries and sexuality (again)
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 13:36:03 GMT

In article <8APR92.17321438@umbc2.umbc.edu> noel@umbc2.umbc.edu writes:
>I hardly consider things like pinups and the pictorials in Playboy erotica.  

Then you're using the word in a way that's almost completely unrelated to
its actual meaning. "Erotica" is material intended to arouse. Pinups are
definitely erotica, even if you personally don't find them arousing.

>IMHO, "erotica" is just a nice way of saying "pornography"  which is not 
>necessarily a bad thing.

Pornography is the depiction of actual sexual behaviour, again with the
intent of being arousing. It also implies a lack of other values (quality
of production, etcetera...).
-- 
/F{findfont exch scalefont setfont}def /S{moveto show}def /T{/Times-Roman F}def
6 T (Have you hugged your wolf today?)468 20 S 9 T (Taronga Park BBS)24 35 S 10
/Courier F(`-_-')488 40 S ( 'U` )488 30 S 6 T (+1 713 568 0480 2400/n/8/1)24 27
S (+1 713 568 1032 Trailblazer)24 20 S 12 T (Peter da Silva)24 45 S showpage
From: peacock5293@iscsvax.uni.edu (Greywolf)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry
Subject: Re: Furries and sexuality (again)
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:26:50 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Apr7.233950.5070@muddcs.claremont.edu>, dgreen@jarthur.claremont.edu (David 'Mishael' Green) writes:
> In article <1992Apr7.154717.3625@iscsvax.uni.edu> peacock5293@iscsvax.uni.edu (Greywolf) writes:
> ->In article <1992Apr7.072818.11351@muddcs.claremont.edu>, dgreen@jarthur.claremont.edu (David 'Mishael' Green) writes:
> ->Not that I'm totally against the point, but I'm afraid I can't totally agree
> ->with the point, either.  (I'll have to think on this one...)
> 
> Hmm, looks like I'm going to have to qualify what I was trying to say here.
> I was referring to private or relatively private conversations, for the most

Okay -- Once again, an apparent conflict because of my misunderstanding.  Sorry
'bout that.  I think I see what you mean, now.

> 
>> *nod* Indeed.  I didn't even give a second thought to buying a CF T-shirt while
>> I was there at least partly because I knew that I wouldn't be able to wear it

Hm.  Erotica on the official CF3 T-shirt?  So much for souvenirs, huh?  By the
way -- I'm not up on all of the furry conventions available.  Are *all* of them
pretty much like CF3, or are there any, um, "tamer" ones elsewhere?
-- 
-Jordan            ..      PEACOCK5293@iscsvax.uni.edu
                  .OO.     Jordan Peacock (Jordan Greywolf)
                  O/\O     (New Address):  1610 Parker
                   --                      Cedar Falls, IA  50613
Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry,rec.games.mud
From: morpheus@cco.caltech.edu (Ken Bartlett)
Subject: Re: FurryMUCK legality/illegality?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 05:03:49 GMT


Illegal?  I didn't know that the US or any local governments had
passed anything outlawing FurryMUCK..

			--Ken

Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry
From: vgriscep@wam.umd.edu (VGR (Craig Pell))
Subject: Re: Animalympics
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:03:38 GMT

In article <9qyj55k@lynx.unm.edu> skaterat@vesta.unm.edu () writes:
>BTW, does anyone remember an animated full-length film called Animalympics?
>We're talking early eighties here...I believe...
>I remember it fondly from younger years, but I can't find it in video stores
> anymore and was wondering if anyone else has seen/owns/knows where I can get a copy, perhaps...

Whole Toon Access has it.

   VGR
From: peacock5293@iscsvax.uni.edu (Greywolf)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry
Subject: Furrlough RPG (not related to Furrlough the publication)
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:31:02 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

A while back, somebody (Mhigh?) posted a message about a furry RPG being put
together by Studio 4, called Furrlough (*not* related to the mili-furry
publication), and I wrote off for more info.  Anyway, there were a few things
that puzzled me about some of the scenarios, and I was just anxious to know if
anyone else here on alt.fan.furry may be familiar with the project and/or wrote
off to Studio 4 for info as well, as, if you have, I'd like to bounce a few
ideas (and ask for a few opinions) off of you via email, if you wouldn't mind. 
=)  Just mostly curious to see what sort of impressions others got about the
project...
-- 
-Jordan            ..      PEACOCK5293@iscsvax.uni.edu
                  .OO.     Jordan Peacock (Jordan Greywolf)
                  O/\O     (New Address):  1610 Parker
                   --                      Cedar Falls, IA  50613
From: thantos@wyvern.via.mind.org (Paul Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry
Subject: Re: Other Suns World Creation
Date: 7 Apr 92 10:54:41 GMT
Organization: The Wyvern's Nest (Lawrenceville, GA)

Darren.Hanson@f271.n103.z1.fidonet.org (Darren Hanson) writes:

> Not to my knowledge, but it would be easy enough to write. Just a series of r
> ion of Fortran with a RAND() function.... BTW, what type of output do you wan

  Yeah, upon further consideration it wouldn't be too awful hard...

  I just wanted output to the screen.  If I write the thing in LISP,  as 
  is my current intention, I can pipe the output anywhere...

-----
thantos@wyvern.via.mind.org (Paul Williams)
The Wyvern's Nest (Lawrenceville, GA)
From: jhannah@netcom.com (Jamal Hannah)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry
Subject: Oh Please...
Summary: If skiltaires are annoying.. ignore them.
Keywords: blaze sley skiltaire smear-campagn
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:37:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.n!sjvmh.jhannah
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <9204081523.AA20396@mail.cis.ohio-state.edu> FURRJK@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu writes:
>Jason McIntosh states that Sley, FurryMUCK's Skiltaire, never does anything
>with her power except have cute hug messages.  No reason to pick on her.
>
>Ack ptooi.  Sley is well known for using her "electric shock" on passersby
>anytime she feels bored.  This is because Sley belongs to the same player
>who runs Blaze, the worst powergamer on the MUCK.  NOTHING can harm a character
>played by this player.
>
>Back when Sley was nasty-swept by Kostchyevkov, Blaze went around telling
>lies about not being Sley and how "poor Sley" was very upset by being raped
>and killed by Kostchyevkov.  Truth was, Sley wouldn't get the hell out of a
>place he/she was not wanted and deserved whatever she got.  If Sley is the
>best representative of the Skiltaire species around, the Skiltaires are in
>trouble.  They're vermin anyway.

Knock it off, Igburyanki (yeah, this is Berios)... why do you still have
to rag on Blaze and Sley?  Sure, these FurryMUCK characters used to annoy me,
but I just ignore them now.  I see no proof that either of these characters
intends, or ever has intended in the past, to be truly disruptive to
people on furrymuck.  How do you know that Blaze and Sley are the same?
And why care?  Also, there is a big difference between zapping friends
of yours with electricity and and doing things like "picking up"
other characters and "forcing" them to do things against their will,
as certain characters of yours have been known to do in the past.  And
how about the constant advertisements for the sites you have built that you
post on the public bulletin board in the park?  If I wanted, I could
bitch and moan that it was really annoying and post about it all over
the place.. but that's stupid.

Drop the holy war against Blaze, ok?  It's a real waste of brain useage.
Go ahead and rag on Bruce instead.. because he IS a certified dork.


-- 
+----- WARNING!/Boring signature!/WARNING!/Boring signature!/WARNING! ----+
|       Jamal Hannah                 /   Internet: jhannah@netcom.com     |
|   Cartoonist for Hire!    +-------+ UUCP: ..!ames!claris!netcom!jhannah |
\____  Santa Clara, CA   __/ "Shop as usual... and avoid panic buying." _/
From: peacock5293@iscsvax.uni.edu (Greywolf)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry
Subject: Re: Furries and sexuality (again)
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:39:34 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Apr8.034357.12530@muddcs.claremont.edu>, dgreen@jarthur.claremont.edu (David 'Mishael' Green) writes:
> In article <-nqj16b.fuzzy@netcom.com> fuzzy@netcom.com (Fuzzy Fox) writes:
> ->dgreen@jarthur.claremont.edu (David 'Mishael' Green) writes:
> ->
> ->>but it does seem
> ->>that there's more than just a small call for the non-erotica out there.
> ->>Perhaps it's time that this call be listened to with more than just
> ->>half-an-ear.
> ->

{deleted}

> ->In short, erotica sells well and makes money.  If people want to see
> ->more non-erotica, they must buy it, because artists have to eat!
> 
> Vicious circle, here, it looks like.  Artists don't do a lot of non-erotica,
> because at some point it's the erotica that sells.  So they do less non-erotica
> (since erotica is doing more volume) and less non-erotica gets sold.  So they
> do less non-erotica and...
> 
> Note that I'm not advocating that artists stop drawing erotica.  As long as
> there's a market out there for it, it's going to be done.  But it would be nice
> to have a healthy dose of non-erotica mixed in with it for people who don't
> care for erotica can purchase art that suits their taste, as well...

Precisely -- a vicious circle.  I don't make my money from art in furrydom
circles.  Yes, I do furry art, and yes I can actually get *paid* for it, but
not in this region called "furrydom" -- I do some art for a few campus papers,
some PBM games, one small-time game company, a few minor commissions (a pun for
anybody who is familiar with SwordTag out there.  =)  ), and a handful of local
businesses from time to time.  (Of course, I also happen to draw *humans*,
too...)  Anyway, "furversion" would *not* sell in these circles.  All I know is
that I can draw furry topics, but where do they sell?  Anywhere *BUT* furrydom! 
Go figure...
-- 
-Jordan            ..      PEACOCK5293@iscsvax.uni.edu
                  .OO.     Jordan Peacock (Jordan Greywolf)
                  O/\O     (New Address):  1610 Parker
                   --                      Cedar Falls, IA  50613
Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry,rec.arts.sf.misc
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Denial of Humanity
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 01:27:50 GMT

In article <1992Apr03.095448.11692@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us> rstevew@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (Richard Steven Walz) writes:

	Context deleted

>				In real life, if aliens visit us
>they will be smarter more powerful and likely more versed in what this
>race or culture needs to stop being such a bunch of primitive
>knee-biters. Let's face it. Anyone who can cross light-years is likely
>to be our moral superior even about our moral affairs.

	You may want to look at the history of the exploration of the
arctic in the 19th century by the English. On the whole, English sailors
had access to a wider range of technology and had many techniques we think
of as 'modern', but they had a poor record of applying that 'high tech'
in ways that allowed to them to do as well in the arctic as the Inuit
and other arctic peoples did. The home team advantage of knowing an 
evironment can overcome whatever advantage technology gives one. An
advantage the Inuit and the others had was that stupidity like not
dressing for the weather kills quickly, so that reminants of cultures
which didn't notice that the arctic is a hostile environment didn't
last long enough to meet the English.

	Why should we expect ETs to behave any more appropriately
than did Ross or Parry, or for that matter Franklin, whose expedition
might have died because of the technology they used, rather than in
spite of it (Lead poisoning from canned food)? Appalling stupidity
wrt the northern climate and refusal to admit the locals might know
the territory well enough to be worth listening to killed a *lot*
of explorers in the 1800s.

	Someone who could cross light years might be as dense as the
English  in the north or as rapacious as the Belgians in the Congo.

								James Nicoll
Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry
From: fuzzy@netcom.com (Fuzzy Fox)
Subject: Re: Furries and sexuality (again)
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 03:02:52 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

dgreen@jarthur.claremont.edu (David 'Mishael' Green) writes:

>but it does seem
>that there's more than just a small call for the non-erotica out there.
>Perhaps it's time that this call be listened to with more than just
>half-an-ear.

I have talked to a few artists on this subject, and I recall one in
particular who did not like drawing furry erotica, but he did it anyway
because it PAID THE BILLS.  People were happy to buy it and fill his
pockets if he continued to draw this material, but if he drew non-erotic
material, it would not sell well at all.  And, having seen his drawings,
I would say that it is NOT because he happened to draw erotica better.
Quite the contrary, IMO.

In short, erotica sells well and makes money.  If people want to see
more non-erotica, they must buy it, because artists have to eat!

-- 
Fuzzy Fox                                fuzzy@netcom.com
Also known as David DeSimone             an207@cleveland.freenet.edu

                               "Foxes are people too!  And vice versa."
Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry
From: fuzzy@netcom.com (Fuzzy Fox)
Subject: Re: Furries and sexuality (again)
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 02:56:56 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

john@ontek.com (John Alan Stanley) writes:

>}	Does that mean furries can't (or shouldn't) enjoy furry
>}erotica?  No.  But by the same token, they don't have to either.

>What on earth does that mean?

It means that someone can still be furry even if they don't like furry
erotica.

-- 
Fuzzy Fox                                fuzzy@netcom.com
Also known as David DeSimone             an207@cleveland.freenet.edu

                               "Foxes are people too!  And vice versa."
From: IO10716@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Jason McIntosh)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry
Subject: Re: What is the Prancing Skiltaire?
Date: 8 Apr 92 11:58:49 GMT
 <qgFuiB1w164w@bluemoon.rn.com>
Organization: University of Maine System

MM-hmm... I suppose that skiltaire could be powergamed with amedium like furryM
UCK, but the only prevalent one there, Sley, never does anything with her power
s except having cute hug messages. No reason to pick on her.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.furry:1250 rec.arts.sf.misc:1364
From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry,rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: Denial of Humanity
Date: 12 Apr 92 20:03:27 GMT
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Apr11.201527.5753@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us> rstevew@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (Richard Steven Walz) writes:

>I can agree basically, Steve, but there is a difference between just a
>few hundred years of developmental difference and a lust for riches
>and 100 million year lead. Our social institutions might seem to lag
>our technology, but not by much. I think that bombing ourselves into
>extinction is just as likely from a technical flaw as from a
>psycho-social flaw. But 100 million years of development of both is
>something that I'll bet we would seem as puppy dogs comparatively. And
>if we were bad puppy dogs, they might have reasons for either offing
>us, protecting and mentally altering us, or simply imposing their
>ethic for us upon us that we couldn't grasp anymore than your dog can
>fathom a computer.               R. Steve Walz

I don't see it.  Dogs are a product of as long and complex a period of
evolutionary pressures as we are; they simply developed in different
directions.  They're no "more" or "less" evolved than we are; they
simply didn't develop into sentient beings.  So where's the certainty
that 100 million years of evolutionary pressure would necessarily lead
to superior morals?  It's like saying that because birds are a hundred
million years more "advanced" than dinosaurs, they're necessarily
larger and stronger.  A bird is only "better" than a dinosaur in that
it's better adapted for present-day environments, and maybe not
even that; luck and chance play an extreme role in evolutionary
survival.

And whose moral standard are you using for superior?  If there's an
absolute morality, I find it difficult to imagine it encompassing
extermination or brainwashing in the good category; if morality is
relative, then I don't see why we should use the standards of those
who would kill us.

We may be able to develop into creatures with higher moral standards,
but I'll be very suspicious if the manifestation of that "higher morality"
involves mass murder or mind-altering without the consent of the victim.
My primitive moral standards already know that to be a crime, and I
won't agree that any moral standards which disagree can be considered
"higher".

Mike
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Never let your sense of morality prevent
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 you from doing what's right!"
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 --Mayor Salvor Hardin of Terminus
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Isaac Asimov, _Foundation_
Xref: sparky alt.fan.furry:1248 rec.arts.sf.misc:1361
From: rstevew@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry,rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: Denial of Humanity
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 20:15:27 GMT
Organization: The Armory

In article <1992Apr9.014519.2578@fulcrum.oz.au> steve@fulcrum.oz.au (Steve Taylor) writes:
>In article <1992Apr03.095448.11692@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us> rstevew@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>
>>In real life, if aliens visit us
>>they will be smarter more powerful and likely more versed in what this
>>race or culture needs to stop being such a bunch of primitive
>>knee-biters.
>
>How can you say this? We haven't developed interstellar travel (yet), but
>we *have* developed -
>
>		Nuclear Power
>		Computers
>		Limited biotechnology
>		Internal combustion + explosives
>		Velcro
>		Soft serve ice cream cones
>		etc,
>
>and we haven't turned into angels.
>
>>Let's face it. Anyone who can cross light-years is likely
>>to be our moral superior even about our moral affairs.
>
>Let's face it. Anyone who can develop napalm is likely
>to be our moral superior even about our moral affairs.
>
>Before any flames me about being anti technology - I'm not. Some people
>design fuel-air explosives, others design vaccines and dams. My point is
>just that it's not our tool building abilities which determine our moral
>stance.
>
>					
>					Steve

I can agree basically, Steve, but there is a difference between just a
few hundred years of developmental difference and a lust for riches
and 100 million year lead. Our social institutions might seem to lag
our technology, but not by much. I think that bombing ourselves into
extinction is just as likely from a technical flaw as from a
psycho-social flaw. But 100 million years of development of both is
something that I'll bet we would seem as puppy dogs comparatively. And
if we were bad puppy dogs, they might have reasons for either offing
us, protecting and mentally altering us, or simply imposing their
ethic for us upon us that we couldn't grasp anymore than your dog can
fathom a computer.               R. Steve Walz
From: Nicolai.Shapero@f524.n102.z1.fidonet.org (Nicolai Shapero)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry
Subject: Re: Furries and sexuality (again)
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 06:36:31 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:102/524 - StormGate Aerie, Los Angeles CA

On <Apr 08 17:38>, Dave Peyton wrote:

 DP>The only
 DP>reason I even *mentioned* Christian fundamentalists is that 
 DP>something like
 DP>this apparently *did* happen at the last ConFurence.  By now, I 
 DP>thought that
 DP>was common knowledge in alt.fan.furry.

It wasn't even common knowledge at the last ConFurence.  I was there,
and was not aware that Fundies were up in arms about anything to do
with the convention.  What happened?

==========================================
=Nicolai.Shapero@f524.n102.z1.fidonet.org=
==========================================
 



--  

Nicolai Shapero
Internet: Nicolai.Shapero@f524.n102.z1.fidonet.org
Compuserve: >internet:Nicolai.Shapero@f524.n102.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry