Talk:Burned Furs

Discussion Pages '''Older conversations have been archived. Please view the links on the right review old threads.'''
 * Archive 1 (August 2005 - January 2006)
 * Archive 2 (January 2006 -March 2009)

NOTE: This discussion was previously found on Burned Fur, which now redirects here

Inaccuracies as a result of recent edits
There's probably a lot of other inaccuracies in the article as well. Let's see if anyone does anything about them. &mdash;Xydexx 01:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The article currently states "opponents" of Burned Fur claimed Confurence was a Burned Fur convention. This claim was in fact made by Burned Fur member Hangdog on alt.fan.furry, who was then corrected not only by Darrel Exline but myself as well. For the record, it might be worthwhile to note that although Darrel Exline had publicly stated on AFF that he didn't want anything to do with Burned Fur anymore, Burned Fur member and Zoniecon Chairman Scott Malcomson had been claiming Darrel was a "closet" Burned Fur. So it seems to me the folks responsible for the rumor that CF was a Burned Fur convention were Burned Furs themselves.
 * The article claims "Hangdog" formally apologized to me in May 2004. In fact, I have never received an apology from Hangdog for the libelous and homophobic remarks he made on alt.fan.furry.
 * If there are inaccuracies, why don't you fix them? I don't know enough about the Burned Furs to do it, but if you do, you're the logical person to make corrections. --GingerM (Leave me a message) 02:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a very good question.
 * The reason I haven't bothered to fix them is due to a fundamental disagreement with GreenReaper's governance of WikiFur and his penchant for giving soapboxes and megaphones to kooks. I don't think he does it out of maliciousness; he simply doesn't know any better. He doesn't have firsthand experience of the embarrassing footnote in Furry history called Burned Fur. I do. And I've made solid, fact-based edits to this and other controversial articles in the past and called out revisionism and misinformation, but to say it's been an uphill struggle against the Admins is an understatement.
 * So what does one do when faced with misinformation on a wiki where the Admins themselves have made it abundantly clear that it'll be easier to make things up than to get corrections made?
 * On the one hand, one could spend a lot of time and effort in an uphill struggle to get those corrections made, and maybe, eventually, they will.
 * On the other hand, one could simply take the path of least resistance. If it's too difficult to make corrections to a wiki, then it becomes surprisingly easy to point out the wiki has credibility problems.
 * So instead of trying to get corrections made on wiki where the Admins don't care about (and in some cases are actively hostile to) them, one finds more productive things to do:
 * Figuring out how to install a new medicine cabinet.
 * Playing MineCraft.
 * Sleeping.
 * You get the idea. It is perhaps a testament to my patience that explaining What's Wrong With WikiFur is still worth a modicum amount of my attention, even if it ranks somewhere below buying a new waste basket for the master bathroom.
 * So, yes, while I could correct the inaccuracies, I don't think it'll result in much more than another huge discussion on the talk page, and there's already two of those archived here already. The silver lining is if nobody else does anything about them, I can chalk it up as yet another example of WikiFur's credibility problems. &mdash;Xydexx 06:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Further inaccuracies present in the article
Since I'm adding to the huge discussion on the talk page anyway... As I've said previously, if any of the Admins would like to step in and put the kibosh on Calbeck's bad habit of deleting sourced material and making revisionist edits that in no way reflect reality, they're welcome to do so at any time. &mdash;Xydexx 17:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Myth: Eric Blumrich was "thought of" as a co-founder, but "he never actually joined" the group. Reality: Eric Blumrich was listed as a member of Burned Fur since the founding of the group, and was listed as a founding member on the Burned Fur homepage as late as 2001. He created the Burned Fur webring.
 * Myth: Calbeck claims that I "promoted the argument that Burned Furs should be silent lest their complaints attract more poor press coverage to the fandom." Reality: My position, then and now, was that the best way to improve Furry fandom's image is to put the things we want people to see in the spotlight (which I'm pleased to note is now commonly suggested at any "Presenting Furry Fandom To The Public" panel), rather than the negative things Burned Fur insisted on drawing attention to.
 * Myth: "The fandom's public image, as Burned Fur saw it, was always a paramount concern." Reality: There is nothing in the Burned Fur founding documents stating any goals to prohibit sexualized public behavior, control media exposure, and use decorum in how porn could be displayed in public areas at conventions.
 * Myth: As soon as Burned Fur launched, it was subjected to harsh criticism. The most extreme example of this occurred on alt.fan.furry in February 1999 with Furry_Jihad's statement... Reality: This actually has very little to do with Burned Fur's opposition. In January 1999, Burned Fur member Lancid admitted to posting fake death threats aimed at himself on ALF in an attempt to paint ALF posters as violent gun-toting maniacs, and to further cast Burned Furs as victims of oppression.

All right, what I don't get...
So, based off of what I've heard from others, furries, nonfurs, and anti-furs alike, I've always thought of Burned Furs as a sort of "kettle calling the pot black" kind of relationship with the rest of the fandom--calling those who did certain things as a furry weird while never admitting that they were also weird for liking anthros so much they joined a fandom about them. And this article only confirmed that. I was not aware that the LiveJournal group is the new Burned Furs--but aren't both defunct anyway?--but joined it without thinking during a search for "Furry Fandom". I was joing a lot of groups that day which are since removed from my profile due to disuse, coupled with the fact that I had no intentions of reviving it. I joined the group because it seemed to fit my goals, and might be a nice place to post any progress it made it doing so. It's ridiculous to think I agree with true Burned Fur ideology--I'm a lifestyler, part of the babyfur community, I have a spiritual connection to animals, and I wear a tail and collar in public on an almost daily basis. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this what Burned Furs was about? Either way, Burned Furs was defunct before I even heard of furry, let alone find out it was a fetish. I don't want to eradicate yiff, though I find it disgusting--such a feat is impossible and pointless. Equivamp 10:12, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
 * I wouldn't worry about it. From what I've seen of what's going on you're kinda making a mountain out of a molehill and if you just stop commenting on the matter it'll peter out-El, oh, el 10:40, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

Many critics considered Burned Fur a hate group due to the production of a number of t-shirts bearing the slogan "I don't have a lifestyle, I have a life".
Yeah, because if you don't have a lifestyle, but just a life, you must hate gays. Yes? This article needs to be re-written from scratch, it's too full of bias and outright nonsense.

Ahhhh
Good old Burned Furs, the most hated Furry movement for being the only group of people with a normal sexual orientation.