Re: [SkunkworksAMA] Re: CF is not the con you are looking for?

From: Ross Sauer <patch_at_bytehead.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 21:05:11 -0500

----- Original Message -----
From: darrel_exline <darrelx_at_polarden.org>
To: <SkunkworksAMA_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 6:57 PM
Subject: [SkunkworksAMA] Re: CF is not the con you are looking for?


> --- In SkunkworksAMA_at_y..., "wolf_pack3000" <wolf_pack3000_at_y...> wrote:
> > I could'nt agree more. These burned furs are like the old woman
> who
> > is spying on her neighbors she can complain about somthing.
> >
> > Scott.
> > > > On Tuesday, April 30, 2002, at 05:04 , Ravenwood wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > CF is not the con it once was, now that it's run by a Burned
> > > Fur. It's
>
> Please STOP propogating this FALSE rumor.
>
> I have not called myself a Burned Fur for over two years now, and I
> really have no desire to be associated with them. Their organization
> is completely off kilter and the original purpose completely lost in a
> mire of confusion.
>
> I am not a Burned Fur.

I'm the same way.
I originally joined the BF's because I was disgusted with a few of the
weirdos in furry fandom.
(Like the "lifestylers.")

I realized quickly though how intolerant they were of almost anything "not
normal furry," and asked to be removed from the list.
They ignored my request, and AFAIK, I'm still listed as a member, even
though I've been ignring them for years.
Received on Thu May 02 2002 - 19:09:49 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sat Nov 30 2019 - 17:51:32 CST