OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[John Reimer]

Hello Mike,

> 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.
> 


I was wondering when you'd say something.


> 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.
> 


Sometimes, it's that you just didn't see it.  I guess you missed it then 
or it is now gone.



> 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.


Hmmm. Nope that wasn't it.


> 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?
>> 


Here for one.


>> (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.
> 


Actually, they aren't.  They are just as open-minded.  They will defend their 
worldview quite stridently.  Of course, I haven't seen a "Bible-belt" soccer 
mom in action, so maybe that offers a bit more of a display than I'm familiar 
with.


>> (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.
> 


Again, you must have missed it... or maybe it was removed.  


>> (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.
> 


Maybe not anymore... that's good to know. 


>> 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?
> 


I suppose there are no associations anymore?  Okay... good to know.


Yes, I've read some of your links.  They would count as rants much worse 
and much more abusive and hurtful than mine from a liberal stand-point.  
Some of them I completely disagree with, but then some of them are justified.


> 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.
> 


I didn't object to furry fandom, mike.  Just one image there that perhaps 
has been removed since?


-JJR