OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[Mike Parker]

You know, John, the way you've been going on here I expected to see pics
of Shepherds doing their sheep, barnyard orgies, and such. But Furries?
Come on.

You're taking a very big leap, going from Furries to pornography. It's
like the uproar over D & D back in the '70s, with TSR and their
customers being accused of devil worshipping. This is pure fantasy. I
didn't even see anything remotely resembling bestiality or pornography,
something you alluded to in other posts in this thread.

Frankly, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. You're
entitled to find pictures of fantastical creatures offensive. The
solution to soothe sensibilities is to stop looking at them. There's no
need to mount a crusade to save the D community from the evils of feline
  humanoids showing breasts.

John Reimer wrote:
> 
> Here are my reasons for posting here.
> 
> 
> (1) This is the D language discussion group.  Promotion of D happens 
> here. It is the center of D life.

And at what point did bearophile start pushing Furries on you or any
other member of this D newsgroup? His posts are generally all about D.

> 
> 
> (2) His blog links are connected to his site consistantly in his posts here
> 
> 
> (3) His blog links are carried consistantly through the "Planet D" feed, 
> which consistantly promote NOT only his D blog material but also his 
> furry critters blogs. (yes, I can stop signing up to D planet feed 
> altogether and lose all connection to other feeds :P)... but that won't 
> improve D's reputation any, now will it?
> 
> (4) His *root* link is referenced in Andrei's Phobos2 documentation on 
> ranges. An email address would have sufficed there.
> 

You need not follow the links. Besides, I fail to see how Furries can
have any impact on D's reputation. I'm fairly certain the majority of
programmers are a bit more open-minded than your average Bible-belt
soccer mom.


> 
> (5) "bearophile" now mixed with the content, which sooner or later, many 
> people of all ages will see from the D world has bizarre implications... 
> and I suppose I must stop all imagination from running wild on this one 
> after seeing what kinds of things he publicly displays at his site.  I'm 
> sorry: there is just no good connotation for that alias given the 
> history of modern words ending in "phile".  Innocently... "lover of 
> bears" is cute until you see a picture of human-like figure in a 
> explicit "tangle" with a furry critter from his site.  Excuse the 
> extreme frankness here.
> 

Most handles have a meaning behind them. I alwasys wondered what the
meaning behind bearophile might be. Now that we know, it's still cute.

Furry art is all over the net. You can find plenty of it by typing
"Furry" into Google. If you are so easily offended, I suggest you
install a content filter.


> (6) His public connection of his website here indicates that he appears 
> to have no shame concerning this part of his life.  I therefore feel no 
> shame in showing the dangers of such an association publicly also.  If 
> this is a poor mode of reasoning, then I'm still waiting to have this 
> carefully explained to me /minus/ the typical lame "religion" accusations.
> 

Shame is usually in the eyes of the beholder. I see nothing at all
shameful about Furry art. I could understand your reaction if it were
beastiality, bondage, or some other collection of alternative sexual
lifestyle photos. I still would completely disagree with you, but I
would understand it since negative reactions to anything  other than the
missionary position are common in a prudish society like that of
America. But what is on bearophile's site isn't even sexual (unless
there's a page I missed, but it still wouldn't make a difference). It's
fantasy art. Your reaction is extreme and quite unwarranted, in my book.


> 
> (7) You'll have to suggest to me any other situation where D has had to 
> worry about external links being this bad.
> 

This is all on you, John. From what I've seen, the majority of the
respondents to your post are on the on the other side of the debate.
There's nothing 'bad' going on here.


> 
> 
> In his favour:
> 
> 
> bearophile is polite and consistant in his approach to posting here.  I 
> appreciate that.  Now I *request* that he'll just take the step further 
> and somehow help us not have any association of this material with D!
> 
>

You are making associations where there are none. Everyone has their own
personal interests and pursuits. Some people mix their interests on
their blogs and web sites, others separate them. My signature on the
DSource forums prominently displays a link to three of my blogs,
including my personal blog where I frequently rant against religion and
conservatives. I also occasionally post music videos from Korean girl
bands. Are you going to claim that has a negative impact on the D
community as well?

Ultimately, you are entitled to express your opinion (though, it is
certainly subject to moderation in a privately operated forum such as
this). But, taking under consideration point number 1 on your list
above, I think you'd be better served posting your objections to Furry
fandom on your own blog.