Talk:Burned Furs/Archive1

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Re: Currently existing UK group with similar views to Burned Furs

Similar in what way, exactly? FAF are just people who are sick of the way that their furmeets have turned into pickup sessions. They have made no statements about furry porn, and don't have any manifestos, unlike the Burned Furs.

Perhaps we all might be better off is a page was written that compares/contrasts FAF to Burned Furs? --Dmuth 16:15, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Oops! Still getting used to commenting properly :) No, I don't feel it'd be worth it; the FAF are such a small group and their sole dissatisfaction is with the state of British furmeets. I was surprised they had an article, in fact. But yeah, I suppose I can see why people might say they're similar to the BFs.
--Salmanazar 16:23, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Nor did Burned Fur make any statements about furry porn, other than that it should be displayed in a manner that prevents underaged kids from getting an eyeful. --Calbeck 16 Dec 2005

I think this be moved to "Burned Furs", to conform with other listings in Philosophical groups. I see there's currently a redirect from there, but shouldn't the main article be in that space? (I'm new, so I didn't want to try doing it without checking in.) --Tom Howling 21:02, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Actually yes, throughout the article they are refered to in plural and the group is plural. I say do the move. Do go through afterwards though and edit all the links if you can that point to the old page (See the What links here link in the Toolbox), don't mark for deletion though in case people mis-link in future. -Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 01:56, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)
O.K.. I tried to move it, but there's already a redirect at "Burned Furs", so I can't move the page there. What's the standard M.O. in such situations? Temporarily rename the redirect page? Delete it (how?)? --Tom Howling 16:50, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  1. Copy the text of 'Burned Fur'.
  2. Go to 'Burned Furs', then go back with the no-redirect link after you are redirected.
  3. Edit 'Burned Furs', paste in the 'Burned Fur' text, and give your edit the summary 'Created from [[Burned Fur]]'
  4. Replace 'Burned Fur' with a redirect.
Authorship's retained, and no admin bit needed.
There! I think I did it right, plus fixed links to it. I'd be grateful if someone would spot-check my work -- I'm fairly new to Wiki suff. Thanks for the guidance. --Tom Howling 21:59, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I did think of one issue: People who were on the watchlist for the old page generally won't know to come here. I added a note to that page... I guess if they don't watch it closely enough, they'll miss it. But that's a self-culling audience, ne? --Tom Howling 22:02, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Furry Manifesto

The Furry Manifesto can be found here, via WebArchive. Should this be quoted in this entry, or should a new entry be created?

I'd lean towards copying the whole text into a seperate entry, for historical purposes. Carl Fox 03:44, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Ehh... link. We don't necessarily have permission to copy the Furry Manifesto that burned fur used.. so we can't take it and release it under GFDL or CC since it's not ours. It's safer to do a link Redcard 16:52, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Removal of other anti-furry groups?

Duncan: Why'd you remove links to other anti-furry groups? I'm pretty tempted to put them back in... strikes me as egregious censorship of relevant information, but maybe I'm missing something. --Tom Howling 06:52, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I actually put that list up, and I see his point. The list of Anti-Furry groups is getting a wee long,... and I have not finished adding the still missing ones. So tt's better just to attach the article to the "See Also: Gategory:Antifurries" link, instead of of a having this giant pyramid of names longer that some of the entries themselves:

See also:

Just my two cents Spirou 07:18, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

That was exactly it, Tom. I assure you, no censorship was intended, just a removal of redundancy. I did try to check with Spirou before I made the edits (at least, I think that was your IP addy, Spirou?); I'm not one to make huge changes to someone's editing unless warranted.--Duncan da Husky 12:16, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
It was =) Spirou 16:01, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I think it seemed redundant to list all the anti-furry groups on different pages. Especially since they are (or should be) on Category:Anti-furries and Category:Ideological groups --Dmuth 13:37, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
O.K., I agree completely now -- thanks for clarifying. I thought maybe it was done for political reasons. (That's really a peek into the darkness of my own heart... part of me agreed with it, on a political basis. But that part was beaten into submission with a two-by-four.) --Tom Howling 16:09, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Notice of Edits by Scott Malcomson, former Burned Fur

First, Burned Fur was never an "anti-furry" group.

"Burned Fur's mission statement stated that "Anthropomorphics fandom is being overrun by sexually dysfunctional, socially stunted and creatively bankrupt hacks and pervs."

The above statement actually does not appear anywhere in any of Burned Fur's "founding documents". It is neither in the mission statement nor the Manifesto. It is in fact an excerpt from an opinion piece published to a newsgroup by an individual.

Squee Rat's "Modest Proposal" does nothing more than suggest people who are tired of being lumped in with the fandom's sexually perverse side call themselves "Burned Furs". This is nothing more or less than the now-widespread use of the term "anthro artist" to distinguish a creator from being a "furry artist". None of the listed "stated purposes" attributed to Burned Fur appear in this article. Neither does the Burned Fur Manifesto contain any of these "stated purposes".

Instead, every scrap of the ideology attributed to Burned Fur comes from individual postings to the BF newsgroup --- which is rather like taking the statements of a single furry on Alt.Fan.Furry to represent the position of the fandom as a whole.

As such, I have edited the entry on Burned Fur to maintain factuality.

Thankyou for the edits to this article and providing your sources here. :) The article reads alot better now. --Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 06:56, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Note on POV: asserting "most people" outside Furry fandom think all furries are cartoon animal perverts sounds like an unsubstantiated claim - the bit at the end with the Geek Heirarchy chart. -- ToyDragon(talk)
"Anthropomorphics fandom is being overrun by sexually dysfunctional, socially stunted and creatively bankrupt hacks and pervs." was, in fact, a direct quote from the Burned Fur Mission Statement on their website. Also, the claim that Burned Fur was responsible for standards of conduct at conventions is blatant historical revisionism. The fact is, these standards were already in place well over a year before Burned Fur existed, so Burned Fur cannot take credit for them. —Xydexx 06:02, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, Xydexx, but first, the link you provide is a dead one. The known existing link to the archived Burned Fur files is, and not one of the surviving documents --- including any that would qualify as a "mission statement" --- includes the verbage you insist on using. I WAS able to run down the quote, however, and it DOES appear as I stated: an excerpt from an opinion piece posted to a newsgroup. Although it is often attributed TO Burned Fur, particularly by opponents such as yourself, it is a quote that does not appear to ORIGINATE with Burned Fur.
Second, Burned Fur came into existence around the middle of 1997, at which point there were barely enough furry conventions to require the full use of the fingers of one hand, and only ONE of them had a published policy on public behavior by 1998. That was ConFurence East, which you'll note never had a single incidence of sexualized public behavior, and which never once received any sort of negative commentary from Burned Fur. At the 1997 ConFurence, by contrast, non-BFs complained about sexualized behavior, to include displays of bondage gear, public acts of sex, and erotic dancing --- all in the main lobby of the Knott's Berry Farm Hotel where any family and their kids could get an unobstructed eyeful.
Clearly, your argument that "policies were in place" does not hold water with the reality of history. If any such policies existed, they clearly were not at CFE, which again, no BF ever had a problem with.
--Calbeck, 16 Dec 2005
Fortunately, I can provide a live one. For future reference, if a specific date on fails, replace the date (the large number) with a *. It states that it was written by Nate Patrin with "Additional Material provided" by GothTiger and does indeed seem to contain the stated text, among other things. Both of these people are listed as early members of Burned Fur. It is also possible to get a full listing of all files archived - be sure to check each available date if one does not work, as they are saved separately.
By the way, you should really login as yourself if you're going to sign as yourself. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 05:11, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction. This document does in fact appear on the site, but the first line is missing and the starting line has been revised to read "Being That:". Clearly, the second version was revised to eliminate the offending initial sentence. As far as not logging in, I do to start with...and then, by the time I get done researching and editing for clarity, I've been autologged out. -:P
--Calbeck, 16 Dec 2005
That's odd. It takes weeks for me to get logged out. Check your browser's cookie sessions? --GreenReaper(talk) 06:12, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, Scott, but none of your claims hold water upon closer inspection:
  • As Greenreaper pointed out above, the claim that "Anthropomorphics fandom is being overrun by sexually dysfunctional, socially stunted and creatively bankrupt hacks and pervs" was indeed a part of Burned Fur's Mission Statement. It wasn't an opinion piece, it was actual Burned Fur policy.
  • The claim that Burned Fur came into existence "around the middle of 1997" is both unsubstantiated and untrue. In fact, the earliest reference to Burned Fur was GothTiger posting a message about "SqueeRat's new site" in October 1998 to
  • The claim that CFEast was the only furry convention that had a published policy on public behavior by 1998 is also false. Albany Anthrocon had policies in place regarding public behavior and display of explicit artwork in July 1997—more than a year before Burned Fur existed—in response to Albany's strict blue laws. Additionally, Anthrocon's standards of conduct have been adopted (sometimes verbatim) by numerous other furry conventions since then.
Attempting to rewrite history and take credit for policies which were enacted before Burned Fur's existence is blatant revisionism. —Xydexx 07:44, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Y'know, in light of Calbeck's numerous contradictory statements and inaccuracies regarding Burned Fur's history, it strikes me as somewhat amusing that I seem to know more about this group than he does. One must wonder if he actually took the time to research all the things that his fellow Burned Furs were responsible for that made them such a liability—the offensive t-shirts and pamphlets, the threats of violence, the homophobic slurs, the betrayal of convention staff confidentiality, the constant flamewars on—whether he'd be nearly as enthusiastic in trying to defend the group, or whether he'd be doing everything he could to disassociate himself from it—like most former Burned Fur members have done. Just a thought. —Xydexx 02:15, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he is just concerned that people are doing the same things that the Burned Furs were worried about in the first place - taking the actions of the "worst" individuals in a group and generalizing them to the entire group, as outsiders did for the furry fandom. I am sure that not every person who considered themselves a Burned Fur threatened violence, or made such slurs. Are certain things that many members of the fandom did (and continue to do) a liability for the rest of us? If so, does that make us all bad people? --GreenReaper(talk) 04:56, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
What I'd be interested in knowning is if the "leaders" of the Burned Furs took any sort of action against those within their ranks that went too far? If they turned a blind eye to it (or participated in it), then I think it would reason to hold them (and by extension, the group itself) culpable for the actions of those bad apples. Just my 2 tuna, though. --Dmuth 15:19, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
If Burned Furs didn't like blanket generalizations, maybe they shouldn't have done it themselves (i.e., relegating furry lifestylers to the "seventh level of hell" and so forth). -=) —Xydexx 02:38, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
The trouble with that, of course, is that the leaders appear to have been among the most extreme of the Burned Furs - after all, they cared enough to found it in the first place. Others may just have agreed with what they saw as the principles of the movement. And how much did they actually lead? Were there really regular meetings of the Burned Fur society where they danced around a burning pile of fursuits, or is it more that someone posted up and got their friends to agree to "be part of their gang"? If the group had truly been as cohesive as is sometimes suggested, I think it would have lasted longer.
It's also hard to suggest (in the wider furry fandom) that people are going "too far" when you have those that will jump on you for doing so. I expect that was the case here as well. --GreenReaper(talk) 01:09, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the most vocal of the Burned Furs were also the most extreme ones, but the group didn't have a leader. Still, one would think if there were less extreme members, someone could've spoken up. Most, I think, remained quiet and tried to keep a low profile as the group went progressively downhill. Towards the end, many wanted their names taken off the membership roster due to the negative stigma and liability associated with Burned Fur. The irony here is that for a group allegedly formed to oppose the fandom's poor reputation and bad behavior, Burned Fur's own members were often perfect examples of what they were fighting against.
Apologies if it sounds a little harsh, but I'm not sure there is a polite way to say this group was an embarrassment to the fandom. —Xydexx 02:38, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

"Editor's Notes" on zoophiles

I removed these as they both interrupted the flow of the text (which was, as I understand it, a quote) and contained significant POV. If the information is relevant, please provide evidence and links to both the article and the debate over its validity. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:07, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)

(Editor's Note: at one ConFurence, three 'zoophiles' spoke to a reporter at length as to how the convention served their needs for meeting similarly interested people and their pets.)

Editing Editor's Note: This is a reference to Confurence 9, and an article entitled Heavy Petting by Bill Borrows of Loaded magazine. Even from the first paragraph, this article betrays a considerable lack of journalistic integrity. Borrows: "Imagine a school bus breaking down outside an open prison for semi-repentant paedophiles." Does that metaphor sound like impartial journalism to you? Borrows: "Several overweight American computer geeks, freaks and 40-year-old virgins, thighs rubbing together and saliva dribbling down their chins, have made for the swing doors." Or that metaphor? It becomes quite obvious that this article was never written to report on Confurence 9, but rather as a sensational piece of "shock" journalism. Borrows claims that three anonymous zoophiles were there. Given the nature of the story, the claim lacks credibility. Borrows: "'They're [Confurence 9 guests] really polite and don't cause any trouble,' says the receptionist. 'We had a convention of dancers here recently and they really were the most horrible bunch of people it has ever been my displeasure to meet.'" With this quote, Borrows seems to be deliberately discrediting his own story to the astute reader. Conclusion: There is considerable reason to doubt the veracity of this story of three "zoos" at Confurence 9.
Let me get this straight: you're suggesting that because Borrows is a shock journalist, that he simply made up the interview from whole cloth? Taking out of context is one thing; this would amount to defamation if true. So that's a rather strong suggestion there. It's also a matter of POV to simply assume the man is lying outright, barring anything other than what amounts to a "hunch" to the contrary.
Further, I should point out that these "nonexistent zoophiles" were strongly defended by people opposed to Burned Fur on Even people who were not Burned Furs who made such complaints about this sort of coverage were attacked, not on grounds that the reporter might be lying, but on grounds that bestiality is a "natural" extension of one's normal relationship with one's pets.
--Calbeck, 16 Dec 2005
Bestiality /is/ natural. It doesn't take much research to discover interspecies relationships, and cave paintings depicting it predate the theoretical beginnings of Christian mythology by millenia. Intolerance to others' sexuality, on the other paw, is unnatural. I take it that you feel no one should be allowed to be zoophile, nor tolerate those who are? --Chibiabos 04:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Please limit discussion on the talk page to items related to the article itself. Talk pages are not forums or message boards Spirou 04:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
It is a valid counterpoint to the unsupported statement reflecting a misconception to the contrary. --Chibiabos 05:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


Hey, now that I've read about them, I love these guys! I wish they were still around. Any other groups like this I should know about? Cause, seriously, these dudes rock! --Skunklogo.gif(U)(T)(C) 22:33, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of but there will probably be another before too long. These groups tend to form and then dissolve quite quickly. If you look at the other 'serious' Anti-Furry groups that are actually run by furs, none of them have a long life span. --Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 01:38, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Reverted edit

I think this edit had elements of information that could be useful to the article, although I agree that it did have a certain amount of "tone" to it. --GreenReaper(talk) 07:42, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It does, and I already saved a copy of it to the desktop to edit it to a less obvious POV perspective, incorporating it into the main article. Matter, the whole article could be Wikified a tad more,... One of many things to do,... =( Spirou 07:57, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Corrected Edit: Discussion Points

Edited to remove POV statements and lend depth to otherwise merely suggestive statements. --Calbeck, 16 Dec 2005

Talk:Anti-Furries (Moved from)

Corrected to account for Burned Fur's non-status as an "anti-furry" group. They do not in fact meet any of the given criteria by which a group is in fact considered "anti-furry". In point of fact, Burned Furs constantly related serious concerns with the status of Furry Fandom's image, both in their individual correspondence and public statements. There exists no evidence to date to suggest that Burned Fur wanted to ban pornography from the fandom or take any steps to harm the fandom itself.

Burned Furs did not have a problem with the fandom, but instead with the public sexual conduct of a small minority of furry fans who nonetheless managed to obtain the majority of media coverage concerning the fandom as a whole. Many furry fans living alternative lifestyles interpreted the "Burned Fur Manifesto" to be an attack on their sexual preferences, and responded with accusations that the Burned Furs were everything from homophobes to neo-Nazis. The end result amounted to several years of vicious and ultimately pointless flamewars mounted on the newsgroup by proponents of both sides. --Calbeck, 16 Dec 2005

Reverted to the prior edit, as you are describing the initial intended idea of the formation of the group, not the quickly, disintegrating claustrof#@*! it finally ended being. And having being there during their time period, being friends with such members as MMM, almost incited by its initial goals, a frequent user of both their IRC channel plus message board, I can at-testify that, by the end of the experiment, they had, unfortunately, well earned their "anti-furry" wings. And no amount of rewrite will ever change that. Blame the people inside it that made this possible, they were in control of the wheel. As, now ironically, Michael “Gothtiger, MikeC” Campbell best put it: "What you connect yourself and your activities to can come back to haunt you" .Spirou 05:58, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Spirou, I can lay claim to most of the same sources of information. Mitch Marmel's been a friend of mine since I joined the Dallas Brawl in the early '90s, and if you posted to the BF message board then you probably saw at least one or two messages from me calling for useful and constructive action. I'm not attempting to rewrite history; I simply did not see the history you say you did. Perhaps that's because of my POV, but your position is also distinctly POV, and instead of simply saying that as a declaration, I will demonstrate the point.
Firstly, the Points being Discussed ARE talking about the origin of the group, NOT what it became in its final days. There's nothing in the Discussion Points that talk about the latter period. Every single Point sounds like a "gotcha" phrase, starting off with a statement to the effect that Burned Fur's position was pointless, on grounds that conventions had already begun developing policies to regulate the problems before the group existed. That's not even technically true, because you need to have more than ONE convention with a set of enforced policies to use the plural. ConFurence was not it --- ConFurence East, which was totally unaffiliated, was. And they folded their tent in 1998, around the time Burned Fur came to exist. ConFurence, for its part, had a policy that spoke only in generalities and which was never actually enforced until management changed. And then the new management was accused of turning CF into a "Burned Fur convention".
The second "gotcha" phrase essentially declares that Burned Fur somehow managed to create negative press for the fandom --- but in fact, this is an old saw that has never been substantiated. In every article where Burned Fur appears, it required opponents of Burned Fur to point the group out to reporters. There is not one case of Burned Fur itself causing a story to be written about the fandom, whether for good or bad. Blaming a group for the actions of their opposition is not reasonable.
And the third "gotcha" is the "ironic statement" that was taken over by a pornographic marketer. This would be ironic, perhaps, IF Burned Fur was against pornography, but nothing in any of the group's statements say or suggest such a thing. If there is any irony to be had, it is only insofar as that "fur" and "furry" ARE in fact current-day keywords that porn sites use to lure in new customers...a fact that reinforces, rather than detracts from, the essential arguments of Burned Fur.
There's only one person I ever heard of in the BF movement who felt Furry Fandom could and should go down the toilet, and that was Eric Blumrich himself. I really don't know why anyone ever called him a "founder"; he contributed nothing to the group's organization, operation or documentation. But it's his anti-furry screeds, made on his own website, that most people want to credit to Burned Fur. Most BFs I knew disagreed with Eric's screeds, and in fact most of them left the group because they were tired of constantly being attacked as though THEY were Eric Blumrich.
As for "in control of the wheel", you must not be as informed as you think you are, because NO ONE was in control. The group came under attack from its inception, and spent most of its time on the defensive. There was never any "leadership", and there were no actions taken by the group as a whole as a result. NONE. Anything that happened was a matter of individual actions with few efforts in any area involving more than one or two people. Why? Because most BFs were involved in trying to have a debate on the fandom's issues on, and their opponents were just as busy turning even the most civilized attempts into full-blown flamewars. I can post examples for you all day long, where someone states politely a real concern with something happening at a furrycon, and the very next poster proceeds to flame him up one side and down the other, starting with something along the lines of "liar" and ending with a screed about "worshiping the Mouse".
In the end, Burned Fur was simply scapegoated for all the furfandom's real and imagined ills. Bad press? "Burned Fur brought it on us with all their complaining". Bad convention? "Burned Fur contacted the hotel and claimed that Playboy was being sold under the counter". Newcomers to fandom turning away when the first thing they run into is a hentai rape scene starring an anthro fox? "Burned Fur led them to it". In point of fact, the group did nothing substantial and had neither the organization nor the inclination to do any of the above. It ultimately amounted to a communal gripe session whose opponents took far more seriously than they did themselves.
Well, Un, Scott, I didn't start/write this article. Its been a mess from day one, and in serious need of a good Wification, so you more or less wasted a great deal of typing to try to tell me it is wrongly laid out,...
...Know that, trying to clean it up. Dos, "Firstly, the Points being Discussed ARE talking about the origin of the group, NOT what it became in its final days." No, wrong. The history of anything does not start and ends with its beginnings only. Trio My POV?. is not even written it yet, how could I have one?. Four "As for "in control of the wheel", you must not be as informed as you think you are, because NO ONE was in control." Figure of speech,... Okay, "The last people at the guard post," "The last one manning the store," " The last of the figure heads," "The last to represent,"... Yes, I already know nobody was in control. Again, you are preaching to the choir,...
Here it is in simple terms. The article needs to be wikifi. It's in my list to do. The information you keep adding is a little too much on the POV (Not the first time this has been pointed out to you,) article will get fixed, your additions have been saved, and some of it will be added to the "final" (still editable) article, as it is relevant,...
...and then, it will be vandalized by some skr1pt K1ddi3 writting "SOMETHING AWFUL DOT COM!1!" on it, but I digress. that's all. Spirou 08:47, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Maybe instead of focussing on points of view, you could both get together and figure out a list of facts backed up by references that can be agreed on, and then go from there? You can always say that particular people or groups thought certain things, but you're always going to end up having troubles if you state things directly that you believe and other people don't believe, and which are matters of opinion. --GreenReaper(talk) 09:09, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
That's true, but I would like to Start the rewrite of the article before being called "biased" about it ^-^ Spirou 09:13, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Some points to consider:
  • The claim that Burned Fur's website was bought by a porn merchant because "furry" is a sex-related keyword is highly questionable considering the word doesn't appear anywhere on the webpage or in the source code. Truth be known, porn merchants buy up expired domains all the time—furry or not—so they can get the traffic that was going to those sites. As Occam's Razor states, the simplest solution is usually the correct one.
  • It's disingenuous to put the blame on the opposition for Confurence getting the reputation of being a Burned Fur convention. Remember, Burned Furs such as Peter Schorn insisted on trying to bill it as one (I note that both Darrel Exline and myself corrected him on that point), and other Burned Furs insisted that Darrel Exline was a "closeted" Burned Fur.
  • It's hard to place the blame on Burned Fur's opponents for causing flamewars on or bad press for the fandom, considering the opposition's #1 complaint about Burned Fur wasn't about increasing public decorum, but rather that Burned Furs were such poor examples of it themselves.
I'll be first to admit Burned Fur's history isn't a flattering one, but maybe if they hadn't been so confrontational in the first place, things would have turned out differently. —Xydexx 08:32, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

"inuse" Tag

"the 'inuse' tag is meant to be for a few hours or days, not a month. :-))",... Sorry, RL life hasn't let me breathe since Thanksgiving. I have only been able to do "drive-by" postings or corrections,... and now, FC (>.<),... Spirou 08:02, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)