OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[Jarrett Billingsley]

On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 2:10 PM, John Reimer <terminal.node at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello bearophile,
>
>> (And my name is bearophile, thank you).
>>
>> Bye,
>> bearophile
>
>
> I'm curious to know what "bearophile" means?
>
>
> At first, I thought this alias was innocent enough, but after visiting your
> much promoted site (promoted in the D community), I'm not so sure what to
> think.  I almost blanched at some of the content and greatly regretted
> having visited it.
>
>
> If you don't know what I'm talking about, then I ask you consider carefully
> the implications of some of your the creature fantasies that you blog about.
> I'm surprised nobody else has complained.  Or maybe I should not be so
> surprised considering how politically incorrect it is to challenge any
> ideology (or fantasy, for that matter) even if it be so morally bankrupt so
> as to be considered extreme indeceny and deviance by any number of different
> cultural standards. The implications there as graphically displayed, while
> not quite clear, are in the direction of bestiality... and if not, are
> confused enough as to be presumptiously indifferent to any ethical question
> about the horrible nature of it.
>
>
> You are not doubt quite bright, as your other interests and participation in
> D design have made clearly evident.  But I just can't believe such content
> is so closely linked to this group and the D design process.  I should think
> you would be embarrassed.  I know I am to have been subjected to it.
>
>
> If you're shocked that I'm confronting you openly on this, the reason lies
> squarely in the fact that you are boldly and unashamedly displaying the
> material in a site that is linked here multiple times; and I believe such
> boldness warrants the same measure of confrontation in return.  I hope you
> will change your mind about the material.  I'd wish both your mind on the
> matter and the material would completely change, but I don't have the right
> to request much more than that you disassociate it completely with your
> dealings with D, so that those it concerns  don't have to be involved in the
> particulars of your fantasies whenever you link your site here.
>
>
> Of course, it is equally people's right here to support you in your freedom
> to display such things (while providing the links here).  If they do,
> however, it speaks volumes about peoples general apathy to the downward
> spiral of society where increasingly indecent content is seen as normal and
> harmless. This is a great shame, and I'd be sorry to see that people don't
> care anymore.
>
>
> For those that see this as flamebait, I request that you do not respond. I
> just felt somebody had to say something about this.  If this is perceived to
> be libelous, I ask that you consider carefully how damaging your content is
> to others, and the feelings it might engender in its viewers.  Thus, you
> should recognize that this post merely elucidates on what's already evident.

He's what's called a furry.  Welcome to the internet, I suppose you've
been living under a rock.