WikiFur - User contributions [en]

Talk:Furs Against Furs

2006-10-18T19:28:27Z

Pika:

== Hmm,... ==

Their web forum is back online, but it has been renamed, from "Furs against Furs" to "Fuckers avec Fromage."

Another discrepancy is that, for a very recently created (and abandoned) group, way too much "history" is listed has having "occurred" in such a small time period. I call fake or parody. Any thoughts? [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 19:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

:Like alot of furry orgs it got a quick start with eager members who wanted to change everything.. I remember there was a lot of fighting on their journal, alot of blame for singling out furries they saw as problems, lots of UK furries who where upset. But it drowned in the arguments, the founder left pretty early.. they only had a few small meets.. there were much bigger plans that were cancelled. They were never really organized.. the article is true, they aren't fake, they just attracted a lot of controversy and gave up.

:The forum seems to have crashed.. there used to be many more members, I had an registration there once.. now no ones joined since March except for spammers. Makes it hard to know what theyre doing. :P ~ [[Downspin]]

::Allright =) I'm leaving the reference Tag up, thought, as it would help the article itself [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 22:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

== Word/phrase choice quarrel ==

"Furs Against Furs (FAF) was a European group similar in principle to the American Burned Furs movement. Based in the United Kingdom, the Furs Against Furs aims to create a more socially acceptable subcategory of Furry Fan."

I hadn't even heard of FAF, but if (as this describes) it is similar to Burned Furs, then its goal is '''NOT''' "to create a more socially acceptable subcategory of Furry Fan." Its goal (again if it is similar to Burned Furs) is to somehow exclude or eliminate all behavior or members of the fandom it deems as socially unacceptable. There is a very keen, sharp difference ... a goal of creating a subcategory implies its a subcategory that fits in with the rest of the community, which the Burned Furs most certainly was not (and from the description that FAF is like the BF, it would not be true here, either). --[[User:Chibiabos|Chibiabos]] 20:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:The article points out more of what they became, instead of what they started as. The same as Burned Furs, their initial goals were eventually twisted by a few extreme individuals, with the final outcome of becoming something being best remembered by its final (involuntary) negative image [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 21:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::It was not intended as its beginning, then, to drive out / exclude / eliminate / behave hostilely toward "socially unacceptable" furs from the fandom then? Is there any evidence to support that it wasn't intended to be what it did become? --[[User:Chibiabos|Chibiabos]] 22:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::: The only evidence I can provide, is my own word. As one of the co-founders of FAF I can assure that my personal agenda, and that of the majority of FAF members, was to simply call for a little more subtly from furs, never to attack other members of the fandom. However I feel that some of us may have been brought into the FAF, under the illusion that we where genuinly trying to make a differnce, while as the article points out, Niko wanted fame (or infamy, as the case may be) and very early on began calling people out and attacking them. Only months later, after I and the few other 'genuine' co-founders left, did we see the light. So to wrap up, the article is not wrong and it is not over dramatized. The events it outlines are all true. If you require any more information, feel free to get in touch with me. --[[Pika]] 20:23, 18 October 2006 (GMT)

Talk:Furs Against Furs

2006-10-18T19:27:03Z

Pika:

== Hmm,... ==

Their web forum is back online, but it has been renamed, from "Furs against Furs" to "Fuckers avec Fromage."

Another discrepancy is that, for a very recently created (and abandoned) group, way too much "history" is listed has having "occurred" in such a small time period. I call fake or parody. Any thoughts? [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 19:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

:Like alot of furry orgs it got a quick start with eager members who wanted to change everything.. I remember there was a lot of fighting on their journal, alot of blame for singling out furries they saw as problems, lots of UK furries who where upset. But it drowned in the arguments, the founder left pretty early.. they only had a few small meets.. there were much bigger plans that were cancelled. They were never really organized.. the article is true, they aren't fake, they just attracted a lot of controversy and gave up.

:The forum seems to have crashed.. there used to be many more members, I had an registration there once.. now no ones joined since March except for spammers. Makes it hard to know what theyre doing. :P ~ [[Downspin]]

::Allright =) I'm leaving the reference Tag up, thought, as it would help the article itself [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 22:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

== Word/phrase choice quarrel ==

"Furs Against Furs (FAF) was a European group similar in principle to the American Burned Furs movement. Based in the United Kingdom, the Furs Against Furs aims to create a more socially acceptable subcategory of Furry Fan."

I hadn't even heard of FAF, but if (as this describes) it is similar to Burned Furs, then its goal is '''NOT''' "to create a more socially acceptable subcategory of Furry Fan." Its goal (again if it is similar to Burned Furs) is to somehow exclude or eliminate all behavior or members of the fandom it deems as socially unacceptable. There is a very keen, sharp difference ... a goal of creating a subcategory implies its a subcategory that fits in with the rest of the community, which the Burned Furs most certainly was not (and from the description that FAF is like the BF, it would not be true here, either). --[[User:Chibiabos|Chibiabos]] 20:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:The article points out more of what they became, instead of what they started as. The same as Burned Furs, their initial goals were eventually twisted by a few extreme individuals, with the final outcome of becoming something being best remembered by its final (involuntary) negative image [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 21:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::It was not intended as its beginning, then, to drive out / exclude / eliminate / behave hostilely toward "socially unacceptable" furs from the fandom then? Is there any evidence to support that it wasn't intended to be what it did become? --[[User:Chibiabos|Chibiabos]] 22:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::: The only evidence I can provide, is my own word. As one of the co-founders of FAF I can assure that my personal agenda, and that of the majority of FAF members, was to simply call for a little more subtly from furs, never to attack other members of the fandom. However I feel that some of us may have been brought into the FAF, under the illusion that we where genuinly trying to make a differnce, while as the article points out, Niko wanted fame (or infamy, as the case may be) and very early on began calling people out and attacking them, only months later, after I, and the few other 'genuine' co-founders left, we saw the light. So to wrap up, the article is not wrong and it is not over dramatized. The events it outlines are all true. --[[Pika]] 20:23, 18 October 2006 (GMT)

User:Pika

2006-10-18T19:26:16Z

Pika:

Uhm... just look here
http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/Pika :)

Talk:Furs Against Furs

2006-10-18T19:23:39Z

Pika: /* Word/phrase choice quarrel */

== Hmm,... ==

Their web forum is back online, but it has been renamed, from "Furs against Furs" to "Fuckers avec Fromage."

Another discrepancy is that, for a very recently created (and abandoned) group, way too much "history" is listed has having "occurred" in such a small time period. I call fake or parody. Any thoughts? [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 19:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

:Like alot of furry orgs it got a quick start with eager members who wanted to change everything.. I remember there was a lot of fighting on their journal, alot of blame for singling out furries they saw as problems, lots of UK furries who where upset. But it drowned in the arguments, the founder left pretty early.. they only had a few small meets.. there were much bigger plans that were cancelled. They were never really organized.. the article is true, they aren't fake, they just attracted a lot of controversy and gave up.

:The forum seems to have crashed.. there used to be many more members, I had an registration there once.. now no ones joined since March except for spammers. Makes it hard to know what theyre doing. :P ~ [[Downspin]]

::Allright =) I'm leaving the reference Tag up, thought, as it would help the article itself [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 22:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

== Word/phrase choice quarrel ==

"Furs Against Furs (FAF) was a European group similar in principle to the American Burned Furs movement. Based in the United Kingdom, the Furs Against Furs aims to create a more socially acceptable subcategory of Furry Fan."

I hadn't even heard of FAF, but if (as this describes) it is similar to Burned Furs, then its goal is '''NOT''' "to create a more socially acceptable subcategory of Furry Fan." Its goal (again if it is similar to Burned Furs) is to somehow exclude or eliminate all behavior or members of the fandom it deems as socially unacceptable. There is a very keen, sharp difference ... a goal of creating a subcategory implies its a subcategory that fits in with the rest of the community, which the Burned Furs most certainly was not (and from the description that FAF is like the BF, it would not be true here, either). --[[User:Chibiabos|Chibiabos]] 20:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

:The article points out more of what they became, instead of what they started as. The same as Burned Furs, their initial goals were eventually twisted by a few extreme individuals, with the final outcome of becoming something being best remembered by its final (involuntary) negative image [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 21:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::It was not intended as its beginning, then, to drive out / exclude / eliminate / behave hostilely toward "socially unacceptable" furs from the fandom then? Is there any evidence to support that it wasn't intended to be what it did become? --[[User:Chibiabos|Chibiabos]] 22:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

::: The only evidence I can provide, is my own word. As one of the co-founders of FAF I can assure that my personal agenda, and that of the majority of FAF members, was to simply call for a little more subtly from furs, never to attack other members of the fandom. However I feel that some of us may have been brought into the FAF, under the illusion that we where genuinly trying to make a differnce, while as the article points out, Niko wanted fame (or infamy, as the case may be) and very early on began calling people out and attacking them, only months later, after I, and the few other 'genuine' co-founders left, we saw the light. So to wrap up, the article is not wrong and it is not over dramatized. The events it outlines are all true. --[[User:Pika|Pika]] 20:23, 18 October 2006 (GMT)