Terrie smiths print page update
KevinHalse
i said it before, and i'll say it again... lifesized plush terrie smith
CHARACTER (fucking retards) love doll....
Gabriel Gentile
> i said it before, and i'll say it again... lifesized plush terrie smith
> CHARACTER (fucking retards) love doll....
No! Now get back in your cupboard!
Michael Campbell
@mb-fy.aol.com:
> http://www.rexx.com/~jaguar/thumbnail.html
(Sigh) With terrie Smith it's always the same story: Ten percent of her
stuff you look at, drop to your knees and cry out "WE ARE NOT WORTHY!"
The other ninety percent is just depressing.
KevinHalse
yes master! sorry master! i said nothing! ;)
ilr
"Michael Campbell" <mecamp...@tds.net> wrote in message
news:Xns91F3EBA7A9E4Em...@66.80.12.166...
>
> (Sigh) With terrie Smith it's always the same story: Ten percent of her
> stuff you look at, drop to your knees and cry out "WE ARE NOT WORTHY!"
>
mhirtes
Of course it's that way! There's no soul behind it. Just a mindless
production machine meant to generate income from the slobbering Chester freaks.
Kinda like a Queen Ant. Too bloated to move from it's chamber, shitting
out hundreds of eggs, day in, day out.
Ken Pick
> stuff you look at, drop to your knees and cry out "WE ARE NOT WORTHY!"
>
> The other ninety percent is just depressing.
Actually, I'd have said "monotonous" instead of "depressing". Most
Terrie Smith art looks like Playboy pinup after Playboy pinup with
fur, muzzle, and tails added; after a while it all looks alike. I see
nothing that suggests any character or life outside of the picture,
and very little in the picture other than "Lookit me! I'm furry!
Don'cha wanna yiff me?"
And don't get me started on Chester the Swishy Ringtail, one of the
most overdone characters in the fandom; once described as the
salvation of furries who are too embarrassed to cruise a gay bar for
real.
Now those Art Nouveau pieces at the start of the thumbnails page --
they're different. Not so much in the critter, but the style.
However, they probably don't sell as well as the titty-critters and
swishy ringtails.
Charles Melville
Michael Campbell wrote:
Hm. I suppose it depends on the viewer. I've seldom been disappointed by
Terrie's work, and I'm always surprised to find people who express the above
opinion.
--
-Chuck Melville-
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/index.htm
Charles Melville
mhirtes wrote:
> Kinda like a Queen Ant. Too bloated to move from it's chamber, shitting
> out hundreds of eggs, day in, day out.
Well, thank you for sharing -your- day with us.
Charles Melville
Ken Pick wrote:
> Michael Campbell <mecamp...@tds.net> wrote in message news:<Xns91F3EBA7A9E4Em...@66.80.12.166>...
> > (Sigh) With terrie Smith it's always the same story: Ten percent of her
> > stuff you look at, drop to your knees and cry out "WE ARE NOT WORTHY!"
> >
> > The other ninety percent is just depressing.
>
> Actually, I'd have said "monotonous" instead of "depressing". Most
> Terrie Smith art looks like Playboy pinup after Playboy pinup with
> fur, muzzle, and tails added; after a while it all looks alike. I see
> nothing that suggests any character or life outside of the picture,
> and very little in the picture other than "Lookit me! I'm furry!
> Don'cha wanna yiff me?"
All looks alike in the same sense that -all- such pin-up art looks alike, you mean?
> And don't get me started on Chester the Swishy Ringtail, one of the
> most overdone characters in the fandom; once described as the
> salvation of furries who are too embarrassed to cruise a gay bar for
> real.
And still at the height of overall popularity, more so than any other furry character.
> Now those Art Nouveau pieces at the start of the thumbnails page --
> they're different. Not so much in the critter, but the style.
> However, they probably don't sell as well as the titty-critters and
> swishy ringtails.
I dunno. I rather like those, -and- the series of African Shields. I own one of the originals to the Nouveau
pieces, and wouldn't mind getting one or two more if I could afford them.
mhirtes
Charles Melville wrote:
>
> mhirtes wrote:
>
> > Kinda like a Queen Ant. Too bloated to move from it's chamber, shitting
> > out hundreds of eggs, day in, day out.
>
> Well, thank you for sharing -your- day with us.
>
You mistakenly sent that to me, not Glen.
mhirtes
Ken Pick wrote:
>
> Michael Campbell <mecamp...@tds.net> wrote in message news:<Xns91F3EBA7A9E4Em...@66.80.12.166>...
> > (Sigh) With terrie Smith it's always the same story: Ten percent of her
> > stuff you look at, drop to your knees and cry out "WE ARE NOT WORTHY!"
> >
> > The other ninety percent is just depressing.
>
> Actually, I'd have said "monotonous" instead of "depressing". Most
> Terrie Smith art looks like Playboy pinup after Playboy pinup with
> fur, muzzle, and tails added;
Bravo! You've discovered Terrie's secret!
ilr
"Charles Melville" <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote in message news:3CBEF1AF...@zipcon.com...
>
>
> Hm. I suppose it depends on the viewer. I've seldom been disappointed by
> Terrie's work, and I'm always surprised to find people who express the above
> opinion.
>
Tamar
--
Tamar the Ebony Leopard
http://www.extinctioners.com
http://www.geocities.com/xenif/extinctioners.html
http://www.yerf.com/howashaw
"mhirtes" <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote in message
news:3CBEA639...@radiks.net...
Argentium G. Tiger
wrote:
>Now those Art Nouveau pieces at the start of the thumbnails page --
>they're different. Not so much in the critter, but the style.
>However, they probably don't sell as well as the titty-critters and
>swishy ringtails.
"Different". Delve into these links, and draw your own conclusions.
On comparing some of Smith's works to Alphonse Mucha's art:
Mucha Sources:
Book: "Mucha (The Triumph of Art Nouveau)" by Arthur Ellridge
Web: Alphonse Mucha - Art Images - http://www.ocaiw.com/mucha.htm
Smith's Thumbnail page:
http://www.rexx.com/~jaguar/thumbnail.html
Specific Pieces and which Mucha piece they obviously derive from:
Aditi - Page 78, derives from Summer in "The Four Seasons" 1896
http://www.litillmathur.org/alphonse_mucha/images/summer.jpg
http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/m/Mucha_Alphonse/large/Summer_1896_panel.jpg
Allatum - Page 89, derives from "Mote Chandon Cremant Imperial" 1899
http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/m/Mucha_Alphonse/large/Moet_and_Chandon_Cremant_Imperial_1899_23x60.8cm.jpg
Amalthaea - Page 49, "La Dame aux Camelias" - 1896
http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/m/Mucha_Alphonse/large/La_Dame_aux_Camelias_1896_72.2x207.3cm.jpg
Amaterasu - Page 120, derives from "Austria" - 1899
http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/m/Mucha_Alphonse/large/Austria_1899_68x98.5cm.jpg
Ameretat - Page 138, derives from "Ivy" - 1901
http://www.illusionsgallery.com/am-ivy.html
Amphitrite - Page 168, derives from "Dawn" - 1899
http://www.primenet.com/~byoder/amdawn.jpg
--
Argentium G. Tiger (ag42...@kc42.rr.com)
There are no numbers in my real email address.
Glen Wooten
>
> Michael Campbell wrote:
>>
>> kevin...@aol.com (KevinHalse) wrote in news:20020417204940.15204.00004721
>> @mb-fy.aol.com:
>>
>> > http://www.rexx.com/~jaguar/thumbnail.html
>>
>> (Sigh) With terrie Smith it's always the same story: Ten percent of her
>> stuff you look at, drop to your knees and cry out "WE ARE NOT WORTHY!"
>>
>> The other ninety percent is just depressing.
>
> Of course it's that way! There's no soul behind it. Just a mindless
> production machine meant to generate income from the slobbering Chester
> freaks.
In your opinion, of course. She does not jump and down shouting "LOOK AT
ME! LOOK AT ME!!" as is common on this newsgroup, she just does the
artwork that she likes.
You're still just pissed 'cause she stopped doing free artwork to your
specifications on a rush order for your fanzines ("But, you have an
obligation to do artwork for my stuff!"). I remember that incident...
--
Glen Wooten
_________________________________________________________
| primary: jag...@rexx.com | secondary: leo...@aol.com |
_________________________________________________________
| Terrie's web page: http://www.rexx.com/~jaguar |
_________________________________________________________
KevinHalse
>> and very little in the picture other than "Lookit me! I'm furry!
>> Don'cha wanna yiff me?"
Who cares!? :) I do!
Glen Wooten
> On 18 Apr 2002 09:21:51 -0700, cath...@earthlink.net (Ken Pick)
> wrote:
>
>>Now those Art Nouveau pieces at the start of the thumbnails page --
>>they're different. Not so much in the critter, but the style.
>>However, they probably don't sell as well as the titty-critters and
>>swishy ringtails.
>
> "Different". Delve into these links, and draw your own conclusions.
>
> On comparing some of Smith's works to Alphonse Mucha's art:
>
> Mucha Sources:
>
> Book: "Mucha (The Triumph of Art Nouveau)" by Arthur Ellridge
> Web: Alphonse Mucha - Art Images - http://www.ocaiw.com/mucha.htm
Terrie never said she came up with those backgrounds on her own, they are
obviously Mucha-ish backgrounds (as it says in the description). But, we
all know that Terrie is the only artist EVER to use the influences of
Mucha, or Nagel, or Frazetta, or Disney, or an almost inumerable number of
Japanese anime/mange style artist, or Wyman, or Smith - no, wait...
Gabriel Gentile
> Of course it's that way! There's no soul behind it. Just a mindless
> production machine meant to generate income from the slobbering Chester
> freaks.
>
> Kinda like a Queen Ant. Too bloated to move from it's chamber, shitting
> out hundreds of eggs, day in, day out.
And you wonder why you're not invited to more parties.
ilr
"Glen Wooten" <jag...@rexx.com> wrote in message news:a9ndji$2sku$1...@velox.critter.net...
> Argentium G. Tiger <ag42...@kc42.rr.com> wrote:
> > On 18 Apr 2002 09:21:51 -0700, cath...@earthlink.net (Ken Pick)
> > wrote:
>
> Terrie never said she came up with those backgrounds on her own, they are
> obviously Mucha-ish backgrounds (as it says in the description). But, we
> all know that Terrie is the only artist EVER to use the influences of
> Mucha, or Nagel, or Frazetta, or Disney, or an almost inumerable number of
> Japanese anime/mange style artist, or Wyman, or Smith - no, wait...
>
AJL
> "Glen Wooten" <jag...@rexx.com> wrote in message news:a9ndji$2sku$1...@velox.critter.net...
> > all know that Terrie is the only artist EVER to use the influences of
> > Mucha, or Nagel, or Frazetta, or Disney, or an almost inumerable number of
> > Japanese anime/mange style artist, or Wyman, or Smith - no, wait...
> >
> Ever huh? In what specific categorical faction of this fandom is that?
Obviously, the sophisticated level of sarcasm employed by Glen's
statement was too daunting a hurdle for your mind to transcend.
;)
mhirtes
Glen "You'd better finish off that 4th Chester piece, or no gruel for
you tonight, Terrie." Wooten wrote:
>
> mhirtes <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote:
> >
> > Michael Campbell wrote:
> >>
> >> kevin...@aol.com (KevinHalse) wrote in news:20020417204940.15204.00004721
> >> @mb-fy.aol.com:
> >>
> >> > http://www.rexx.com/~jaguar/thumbnail.html
> >>
> >> (Sigh) With terrie Smith it's always the same story: Ten percent of her
> >> stuff you look at, drop to your knees and cry out "WE ARE NOT WORTHY!"
> >>
> >> The other ninety percent is just depressing.
> >
> > Of course it's that way! There's no soul behind it. Just a mindless
> > production machine meant to generate income from the slobbering Chester
> > freaks.
>
> In your opinion, of course.
It's an opinion widely held, but I'm the one with the balls big enough
to dare SAY it.
> She does not jump and down shouting "LOOK AT
> ME! LOOK AT ME!!" as is common on this newsgroup, she just does the
> artwork that she likes.
And you sell the prints like a good little Huggy Bear.
>
> You're still just pissed 'cause she stopped doing free artwork to your
> specifications on a rush order for your fanzines ("But, you have an
> obligation to do artwork for my stuff!"). I remember that incident...
Boy, you took a REALLY big hit on your crack pipe to cook up that alegation.
And what was this "free" shit? Terrie had my money for months, and I had
a deadline at the time, and I wasn't about to let her go O'Connell on
me. If she claims to be a "professional", then she needs to honor such
things as deadlines.
Let's face it, when you pay someone to do a commission, you may not
"own" them, but you sure as Hell RENTED them.
Ken Pick
> Ken Pick wrote:
>
> > And don't get me started on Chester the Swishy Ringtail, one of the
> > most overdone characters in the fandom; once described as the
> > salvation of furries who are too embarrassed to cruise a gay bar for
> > real.
>
> And still at the height of overall popularity, more so than any other furry character.
Yeah. Can't go wrong with a character whose basically a gay sex toy.
I don't know if that's how he started out, but that's what his rep is
now -- cacomistle meat on Castro Street. ("OOOOOOO! CHETHTER! YIFF
ME! YIFF ME! YIFF ME!") Like that facet of the original character
just took over -- at least in the minds of the fanboys. And once
more, the essence of "furry" gets defined by genitalia and the
prolific (or implied prolific) use thereof.
I had a nightmare once where I woke up one morning and found I'd
turned into a furry. Not just any furry, but a cacomistle. And not
just any cacomistle, but an exact Chester lookalike. My first thought
was how I couldn't go to *anything* fannish from now on unless I was
looking to get raped.
> > Now those Art Nouveau pieces at the start of the thumbnails page --
> > they're different. Not so much in the critter, but the style.
> > However, they probably don't sell as well as the titty-critters and
> > swishy ringtails.
>
> I dunno. I rather like those, -and- the series of African Shields. I own one of the originals to the Nouveau
> pieces, and wouldn't mind getting one or two more if I could afford them.
Though I'd heard the African Shields series are not selling all that
well. Something to do with the mostly-concealing traditional garb
they're wearing. (Though my favorite is the Zorille -- that outfit of
hers just sets her off so well.)
Argentium G. Tiger
<jag...@rexx.com> wrote:
>Terrie never said she came up with those backgrounds on her own, they are
>obviously Mucha-ish backgrounds (as it says in the description).
They're more than Mucha-ish Glen, they're Mucha. The elements of the
very backgrounds were so close that it was childsplay to identify the
exact pictures that were used when Smith generated her version of the
same works.
Clothing. Pose. Background. Props. Artistic Style (Art Nouveau).
So frighteningly similar that only a doped up sloth might miss it.
Exacting care was obviously taken when tracing the originals using a
lightbox.
You or the fanboys can defend her to the hilt all you want, but
pictures really are worth a thousand words.
Speaking of words...
From your own copyright FAQ version 1.2, dated 8/21/2000 that you did
in conjunction with Mel White:
= = = cut here = = =
I'VE MODIFIED WHAT SOMEONE ELSE DID, SO IT'S A DERIVATIVE
WORK NOW - I CAN COPYRIGHT THAT, YES?
Not at all. You have violated their copyright. The right to assign
derivative works rests SOLELY with the copyright holder - you cannot
assume that you can do it. If it's sufficiently different, you might
be able to get a copyright, but if it's obviously taken from another
copyrighted work - it's infringement. Plain and simple.
= = = cut here = = =
>But, we
>all know that Terrie is the only artist EVER to use the influences of
>Mucha, or Nagel, or Frazetta, or Disney, or an almost inumerable number of
>Japanese anime/mange style artist, or Wyman, or Smith - no, wait...
"But all the other kids at school are doing it!"
That doesn't make it right.
--
Argentium G. Tiger (ag42...@kc42.rr.com)
Reading AFF can be, at times, like watching epileptic children
finger-paint.
Chris Beilby
> Kinda like a Queen Ant. Too bloated to move from it's chamber, shitting
> out hundreds of eggs, day in, day out.
>
Kinda like you and flames, eh, Hirtes.
mhirtes
"Argentium G. Tiger" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 21:25:07 +0000 (UTC), Glen Wooten
> <jag...@rexx.com> wrote:
>
> >Terrie never said she came up with those backgrounds on her own, they are
> >obviously Mucha-ish backgrounds (as it says in the description).
>
> They're more than Mucha-ish Glen, they're Mucha. The elements of the
> very backgrounds were so close that it was childsplay to identify the
> exact pictures that were used when Smith generated her version of the
> same works.
So Terrie's doing a "Bob Liefield", huh? Guess that's a good a sign that
the well's run dry as any.
>
> Clothing. Pose. Background. Props. Artistic Style (Art Nouveau).
> So frighteningly similar that only a doped up sloth might miss it.
> Exacting care was obviously taken when tracing the originals using a
> lightbox.
>
> You or the fanboys can defend her to the hilt all you want, but
> pictures really are worth a thousand words.
Actually, each of Terrie's pictures are worth a thousand BUCKS to
Pimpmeister Glen, so watch him come after you now that you'd exposed his
little racket.
>
> >But, we
> >all know that Terrie is the only artist EVER to use the influences of
> >Mucha, or Nagel, or Frazetta, or Disney, or an almost inumerable number of
> >Japanese anime/mange style artist, or Wyman, or Smith - no, wait...
>
> "But all the other kids at school are doing it!"
>
> That doesn't make it right.
It would be if they all marched off the side of a cliff too. :)
Charles Melville
mhirtes wrote:
No mistake at all. It went right where it was intended.
Charles Melville
ilr wrote:
I won't deny it. But even that doesn't mean that the negative comments are necessarily
true, or more than envious mutterings.
Charles Melville
Glen Wooten wrote:
> mhirtes <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote:
>
> > Of course it's that way! There's no soul behind it. Just a mindless
> > production machine meant to generate income from the slobbering Chester
> > freaks.
>
> In your opinion, of course. She does not jump and down shouting "LOOK AT
> ME! LOOK AT ME!!" as is common on this newsgroup, she just does the
> artwork that she likes.
And more power to her.
Charles Melville
ilr wrote:
Interestingly enough, it seems to be among the faction that's generally more creative
and professional. Figure that.
Charles Melville
mhirtes wrote:
> Glen "You'd better finish off that 4th Chester piece, or no gruel for
> you tonight, Terrie." Wooten wrote:
> >
> > mhirtes <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Michael Campbell wrote:
> > >>
> > >> kevin...@aol.com (KevinHalse) wrote in news:20020417204940.15204.00004721
> > >> @mb-fy.aol.com:
> > >>
> > >> > http://www.rexx.com/~jaguar/thumbnail.html
> > >>
> > >> (Sigh) With terrie Smith it's always the same story: Ten percent of her
> > >> stuff you look at, drop to your knees and cry out "WE ARE NOT WORTHY!"
> > >>
> > >> The other ninety percent is just depressing.
> > >
> > > Of course it's that way! There's no soul behind it. Just a mindless
> > > production machine meant to generate income from the slobbering Chester
> > > freaks.
> >
> > In your opinion, of course.
>
> It's an opinion widely held, but I'm the one with the balls big enough
> to dare SAY it.
Actually, the widely-held opinion is that you're the only one loud and obnoxious
enough to say it. Or anything else, for that matter, and most especially when it
wasn't worth the waste of breath to say it in the first place.
mhirtes
Hey, if you refuse to listen, and want to continue being a doofus,
that's not my fault.
mhirtes
Charles Melville wrote:
>
> mhirtes wrote:
>
> > Charles Melville wrote:
> > >
> > > mhirtes wrote:
> > >
> > > > Kinda like a Queen Ant. Too bloated to move from it's chamber, shitting
> > > > out hundreds of eggs, day in, day out.
> > >
> > > Well, thank you for sharing -your- day with us.
> > >
> >
> > You mistakenly sent that to me, not Glen.
>
> No mistake at all. It went right where it was intended.
Yeah. Into my trash folder.
mhirtes
Charles Melville wrote:
>
> ilr wrote:
>
> > "Charles Melville" <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote in message news:3CBEF1AF...@zipcon.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Hm. I suppose it depends on the viewer. I've seldom been disappointed by
> > > Terrie's work, and I'm always surprised to find people who express the above
> > > opinion.
> > >
> > Yes, we all know you're her biggest fanboy on this forum. Good for you.
>
> I won't deny it. But even that doesn't mean that the negative comments are necessarily
> true, or more than envious mutterings.
Oh sure. ANYthing not sung in slobbering praise of Terrie Smith is mere
"envious mutterings".
mhirtes
Charles Melville wrote:
>
> Glen Wooten wrote:
>
> > mhirtes <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Of course it's that way! There's no soul behind it. Just a mindless
> > > production machine meant to generate income from the slobbering Chester
> > > freaks.
> >
> > In your opinion, of course. She does not jump and down shouting "LOOK AT
> > ME! LOOK AT ME!!" as is common on this newsgroup, she just does the
> > artwork that she likes.
>
> And more power to her.
And apparently, what she likes is the latest issue of Playboy.
mhirtes
Charles Melville wrote:
>
> mhirtes wrote:
>
> > Glen "You'd better finish off that 4th Chester piece, or no gruel for
> > you tonight, Terrie." Wooten wrote:
> > >
> > > mhirtes <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Michael Campbell wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> kevin...@aol.com (KevinHalse) wrote in news:20020417204940.15204.00004721
> > > >> @mb-fy.aol.com:
> > > >>
> > > >> > http://www.rexx.com/~jaguar/thumbnail.html
> > > >>
> > > >> (Sigh) With terrie Smith it's always the same story: Ten percent of her
> > > >> stuff you look at, drop to your knees and cry out "WE ARE NOT WORTHY!"
> > > >>
> > > >> The other ninety percent is just depressing.
> > > >
> > > > Of course it's that way! There's no soul behind it. Just a mindless
> > > > production machine meant to generate income from the slobbering Chester
> > > > freaks.
> > >
> > > In your opinion, of course.
> >
> > It's an opinion widely held, but I'm the one with the balls big enough
> > to dare SAY it.
>
> Actually, the widely-held opinion is that you're the only one loud and obnoxious
> enough to say it.
While you just meekly show how much of a chickenshit, sycophant, and
fanboy you are for commenting on how FABULOUS the Emperess' new clothes look.
LancerAdvancd iBuck
to draw" sections that she uses Dover clipart for the backgrounds.. If the
work is old enough it's quite likely to be in a published collection for anyone
to use, as the copyright has expired...
iBuck
Homepage at http://lanceradvanced.com/Furry
"You can have it these ways :Fancy,Correct,Quickly- Pick 2"
Glen Wooten
>
> Glen Wooten wrote:
>>
>> You're still just pissed 'cause she stopped doing free artwork to your
>> specifications on a rush order for your fanzines ("But, you have an
>> obligation to do artwork for my stuff!"). I remember that incident...
>
> Boy, you took a REALLY big hit on your crack pipe to cook up that alegation.
Forgetting all those things from your past again, eh, Michael? Still mad
at Richard Pini for not keeping up the correspondence with you ("But I
sent him SASE's! He's SUPPOSED to answer all my letters!")? Been calling
anyone collect at 3AM local time in Australia lately?
> And what was this "free" shit? Terrie had my money for months, and I had
> a deadline at the time, and I wasn't about to let her go O'Connell on
> me. If she claims to be a "professional", then she needs to honor such
> things as deadlines.
Not quite. You wanted Terrie to send you some artwork for some fanzine
you were doing - and she did. Then you asked her for something special -
which she did (that was what you paid for, and you got it when you wanted
it). Then you wanted some sort of cover, done in a specific style, RIGHT
AWAY! She told you that she couldn't get it to you right away, and that
you already had plenty of material. Your response was that you needed
this specific item, and that she "Owed it to the fandom to GIVE it to you
for use in your fanzine." She told you to pound dirt, as I recall.
Of course, I recall you back in EQ fandom, when Terrie was doing furry
stuff, and sent you some. You responded that you didn't want any of that
furry stuff, only elves. So, for someone who's "been in the fandom longer
than most", why did you reject it at first? Waiting till the EQ fandom
finally kicked you out?
mhirtes
LancerAdvancd iBuck wrote:
>
> I'd point out, that Terrie openly admits in her Littlepaw 2 collection's "How
> to draw" sections that she uses Dover clipart for the backgrounds.. If the
> work is old enough it's quite likely to be in a published collection for anyone
> to use, as the copyright has expired...
>
The issue was'nt about copyright. It was about artistic laziness.
mhirtes
Glen "One day they will make a movie about the way I made my wife
famous. And then they shall make me the King of the Earth. And everyone
will have ice cream." Wooten wrote:
>
> mhirtes <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote:
> >
> > Glen Wooten wrote:
> >>
> >> You're still just pissed 'cause she stopped doing free artwork to your
> >> specifications on a rush order for your fanzines ("But, you have an
> >> obligation to do artwork for my stuff!"). I remember that incident...
> >
> > Boy, you took a REALLY big hit on your crack pipe to cook up that alegation.
>
> Forgetting all those things from your past again, eh, Michael?
Why bother having any memory at all? You seem to be doing all that for
me.
But then, the memory you have of me also seems to have me on the Grassy
Knoll, getting Stalin ticked off at his officer corps, and other acts of
general badassedness.
> Still mad
> at Richard Pini for not keeping up the correspondence with you ("But I
> sent him SASE's! He's SUPPOSED to answer all my letters!")? Been calling
> anyone collect at 3AM local time in Australia lately?
Still being a grudgemongering little shit that needs to dig up the
ancient past? Gee, were'nt you the fucker that gave Mr. Gentile a dirty
look when he dug up that notorious CF8 letter.
As for Richard, not only has he replied, but he's also even thanked me
publicly in his editorials.
So you think I'm lying and you want proof, huh? Okay, stick THIS example
up your ass:
http://www.rwhirled.com/eq/eqletter/ed/ed9412.htm
>
> > And what was this "free" shit? Terrie had my money for months, and I had
> > a deadline at the time, and I wasn't about to let her go O'Connell on
> > me. If she claims to be a "professional", then she needs to honor such
> > things as deadlines.
>
> Not quite. You wanted Terrie to send you some artwork for some fanzine
> you were doing - and she did. Then you asked her for something special -
> which she did (that was what you paid for, and you got it when you wanted
> it).
Then why are you bitching about me wanting to get the commission that I
already paid for?
> Then you wanted some sort of cover, done in a specific style, RIGHT
> AWAY! She told you that she couldn't get it to you right away, and that
> you already had plenty of material. Your response was that you needed
> this specific item, and that she "Owed it to the fandom to GIVE it to you
> for use in your fanzine." She told you to pound dirt, as I recall.
All I can say is "Your memory's pretty fucked up, dude."
Drugs are bad, ng'kay?
>
> Of course, I recall you back in EQ fandom, when Terrie was doing furry
> stuff, and sent you some. You responded that you didn't want any of that
> furry stuff, only elves. So, for someone who's "been in the fandom longer
> than most", why did you reject it at first? Waiting till the EQ fandom
> finally kicked you out?
Ex-use me? What bullshit are you puking out now? It's obvious that
you're taking stuff and amplifying it to bullshit levels just to
entertain the slobbering AFFholes here, but let's not start fabricating
outright lies.
If you think you're so right, then show me the letter in Richard's own
handwriting that sez I was eightballed, loser.
Meanwhile, go back to pimping pix of Chester's nadsack to the goobers
and stfu.
mhirtes
Glen Wooten blew out his ass:
>
>
> Of course, I recall you back in EQ fandom, when Terrie was doing furry
> stuff, and sent you some. You responded that you didn't want any of that
> furry stuff, only elves. So, for someone who's "been in the fandom longer
> than most", why did you reject it at first?
Um, Because Grimalkins *SUCKED*?
Blackberry
>
>[...]
>As for Richard, not only has he replied, but he's also even thanked me
>publicly in his editorials.
>
>So you think I'm lying and you want proof, huh? Okay, stick THIS example
>up your ass:
>
>http://www.rwhirled.com/eq/eqletter/ed/ed9412.htm
Um, he thanked you for "an intriguing 3D photo". Any Joe can send anyone an
"intriguing 3D photo". It doesn't take a lot.
>[...]
>Ex-use me? What bullshit are you puking out now? It's obvious that
>you're taking stuff and amplifying it to bullshit levels just to
>entertain the slobbering AFFholes here, but let's not start fabricating
>outright lies.
Look who's talking. You fabricate a lie in almost every single post to this
newsgroup.
--
I will shine with blinding light / Through those hearts as black as night
Sticks and stones may break my bones
But at least the seeds of love will be sown
- Tears For Fears, "Badman's Song"
Glen Wooten
>
>> Forgetting all those things from your past again, eh, Michael?
>
> Why bother having any memory at all? You seem to be doing all that for
> me.
>
> But then, the memory you have of me also seems to have me on the Grassy
> Knoll, getting Stalin ticked off at his officer corps, and other acts of
> general badassedness.
You're repeating yourself - you've used that same line before...
>> Still mad
>> at Richard Pini for not keeping up the correspondence with you ("But I
>> sent him SASE's! He's SUPPOSED to answer all my letters!")? Been calling
>> anyone collect at 3AM local time in Australia lately?
>
> As for Richard, not only has he replied, but he's also even thanked me
> publicly in his editorials.
>
> So you think I'm lying and you want proof, huh? Okay, stick THIS example
> up your ass:
I never followed up 'cause I never cared - you told Terrie about it, not
anyone else.
>> > And what was this "free" shit? Terrie had my money for months, and I had
>> > a deadline at the time, and I wasn't about to let her go O'Connell on
>> > me. If she claims to be a "professional", then she needs to honor such
>> > things as deadlines.
>>
>> Not quite. You wanted Terrie to send you some artwork for some fanzine
>> you were doing - and she did. Then you asked her for something special -
>> which she did (that was what you paid for, and you got it when you wanted
>> it).
>
> Then why are you bitching about me wanting to get the commission that I
> already paid for?
Can't you read, Michael? You got the commission you paid for - then you
wanted another, right away, for free, because "She owed it to the fandom."
Hooked On Phonics just might clear up that reading comprehension problem.
>> Then you wanted some sort of cover, done in a specific style, RIGHT
>> AWAY! She told you that she couldn't get it to you right away, and that
>> you already had plenty of material. Your response was that you needed
>> this specific item, and that she "Owed it to the fandom to GIVE it to you
>> for use in your fanzine." She told you to pound dirt, as I recall.
>
> All I can say is "Your memory's pretty fucked up, dude."
Of course, Michael, of course...
>> Of course, I recall you back in EQ fandom, when Terrie was doing furry
>> stuff, and sent you some. You responded that you didn't want any of that
>> furry stuff, only elves. So, for someone who's "been in the fandom longer
>> than most", why did you reject it at first? Waiting till the EQ fandom
>> finally kicked you out?
>
> Ex-use me? What bullshit are you puking out now? It's obvious that
> you're taking stuff and amplifying it to bullshit levels just to
> entertain the slobbering AFFholes here, but let's not start fabricating
> outright lies.
Michael, why should I lie? I'm not the one jealous of everyone else...
> If you think you're so right, then show me the letter in Richard's own
> handwriting that sez I was eightballed, loser.
Can't - it was in one of your whining phone calls that you lamented it,
not Richard...
mhirtes
Blackberry wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:56:39 -0500, mhirtes wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >As for Richard, not only has he replied, but he's also even thanked me
> >publicly in his editorials.
> >
> >So you think I'm lying and you want proof, huh? Okay, stick THIS example
> >up your ass:
> >
> >http://www.rwhirled.com/eq/eqletter/ed/ed9412.htm
>
> Um, he thanked you for "an intriguing 3D photo". Any Joe can send anyone an
> "intriguing 3D photo". It doesn't take a lot.
>
But the point was that Glen was saying that I was'nt hearing back from
Richard. I proved him a liar.
KevinHalse
mhirtes
Glen Wooten wrote:
>
> mhirtes <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Forgetting all those things from your past again, eh, Michael?
> >
> > Why bother having any memory at all? You seem to be doing all that for
> > me.
> >
> > But then, the memory you have of me also seems to have me on the Grassy
> > Knoll, getting Stalin ticked off at his officer corps, and other acts of
> > general badassedness.
>
> You're repeating yourself - you've used that same line before...
Just like you've used your's.
>
> >> Still mad
> >> at Richard Pini for not keeping up the correspondence with you ("But I
> >> sent him SASE's! He's SUPPOSED to answer all my letters!")? Been calling
> >> anyone collect at 3AM local time in Australia lately?
> >
> > As for Richard, not only has he replied, but he's also even thanked me
> > publicly in his editorials.
> >
> > So you think I'm lying and you want proof, huh? Okay, stick THIS example
> > up your ass:
>
> I never followed up 'cause I never cared - you told Terrie about it, not
> anyone else.
Nice way of saying "Gee, I was a real fucking asshole to accuse Michael
Hirtes without any proof."
>
> >> > And what was this "free" shit? Terrie had my money for months, and I had
> >> > a deadline at the time, and I wasn't about to let her go O'Connell on
> >> > me. If she claims to be a "professional", then she needs to honor such
> >> > things as deadlines.
> >>
> >> Not quite. You wanted Terrie to send you some artwork for some fanzine
> >> you were doing - and she did. Then you asked her for something special -
> >> which she did (that was what you paid for, and you got it when you wanted
> >> it).
> >
> > Then why are you bitching about me wanting to get the commission that I
> > already paid for?
>
> Can't you read, Michael? You got the commission you paid for - then you
> wanted another, right away, for free, because "She owed it to the fandom."
Say WHAT? I'd love to hear you prove I said that, because if any AFFhole
here knows, I owe furry fandom JACK.
> Hooked On Phonics just might clear up that reading comprehension problem.
As well as "Better Memory For Dummies" in your case.
>
> >> Of course, I recall you back in EQ fandom, when Terrie was doing furry
> >> stuff, and sent you some. You responded that you didn't want any of that
> >> furry stuff, only elves. So, for someone who's "been in the fandom longer
> >> than most", why did you reject it at first? Waiting till the EQ fandom
> >> finally kicked you out?
> >
> > Ex-use me? What bullshit are you puking out now? It's obvious that
> > you're taking stuff and amplifying it to bullshit levels just to
> > entertain the slobbering AFFholes here, but let's not start fabricating
> > outright lies.
>
> Michael, why should I lie? I'm not the one jealous of everyone else...
Jealous of a hack? Oh yeah. I'm just green all over.
>
> > If you think you're so right, then show me the letter in Richard's own
> > handwriting that sez I was eightballed, loser.
>
> Can't -
The stfu if you don't have any evidence to back up your claims, jackass.
> it was in one of your whining phone calls that you lamented it,
> not Richard...
So YOU say. But, I already know that you're chock full of shit.
You know one of these days, we'll have to figure out a way for you to
distinguish the REAL truth and your hate-filled daydreams about me.
Glen Wooten
>
> So YOU say. But, I already know that you're chock full of shit.
Oh, zing-Zing-ZING! I have been skewered! Aaarrgghh!
I've got to stop now - I may injure myself laughing.
> You know one of these days, we'll have to figure out a way for you to
> distinguish the REAL truth and your hate-filled daydreams about me.
Michael, lad: for me to hate you, I would have to be the slightest bit
concerned about you. You have become a cliche. You have pissed off so
many people in such a stupid and inept manner that you've just become a
joke to the world. And the punchline is that you don't realize it, and
never will.
mhirtes
Glen Wooten, who writes for Terrie on the net (because he'd slap her
silly if she dared speak for herself) wrote:
>
> mhirtes <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote:
> >
> > So YOU say. But, I already know that you're chock full of shit.
>
> Oh, zing-Zing-ZING! I have been skewered! Aaarrgghh!
>
> I've got to stop now - I may injure myself laughing.
Drugs Do give a false sense of euphoria to you, don't they?
>
> > You know one of these days, we'll have to figure out a way for you to
> > distinguish the REAL truth and your hate-filled daydreams about me.
>
> Michael, lad: for me to hate you, I would have to be the slightest bit
> concerned about you.
And yet here you are, late at night, sending me all your love. What? Was
there a rerun of Letterman tonight or something?
> You have become a cliche. You have pissed off so
> many people in such a stupid and inept manner
Oh really? You mean, since I refused to let them make me into their
bitch, they despise me for it?
Wow!
Cool!
> that you've just become a
> joke to the world. And the punchline is that you don't realize it, and
> never will.
So sez the man(?) who's biggest niche is pimping his wife to drooling
fanboys at cons, who want pix of Chester "winking back at them".
There was Mark Iennaco, but now he's gone. And there was Kyla
Littlejohn's husband, but now he's gone too.
You're the last of a dying breed, pal. Homo Tomarnoldicus.
DishRoom1
Kevin Halse wrote --
>> http://www.rexx.com/~jaguar/thumbnail.html
>
>
>(Sigh) With terrie Smith it's always the same story: Ten percent of her
>stuff you look at, drop to your knees and cry out "WE ARE NOT WORTHY!"
>
>The other ninety percent is just depressing.
As a Terrie Smith fan, I thought the art is very cool and fluffy. :-)
John Shughart
DishRoom1
>> The other ninety percent is just depressing.
>
>Of course it's that way! There's no soul behind it. Just a mindless
>production machine meant to generate income from the slobbering Chester
>freaks.
I thought it had soul.
>Kinda like a Queen Ant. Too bloated to move from it's chamber, shitting
>out hundreds of eggs, day in, day out.
>
I think that description only applied to animators of a bad TV-animation
series.
John Shughart
DishRoom1
Mhirtes wrote --
>> Michael Campbell wrote:
>(KevinHalse) wrote --
>>> > http://www.rexx.com/~jaguar/thumbnail.html
>>>
>>> (Sigh) With terrie Smith it's always the same story: Ten percent of her
>>> stuff you look at, drop to your knees and cry out "WE ARE NOT WORTHY!"
>>>
>>> The other ninety percent is just depressing.
>>
>> Of course it's that way! There's no soul behind it. Just a mindless
>> production machine meant to generate income from the slobbering Chester
>> freaks.
>
>In your opinion, of course. She does not jump and down shouting "LOOK AT
>ME! LOOK AT ME!!" as is common on this newsgroup, she just does the
>artwork that she likes.
>
>You're still just pissed 'cause she stopped doing free artwork to your
>specifications on a rush order for your fanzines ("But, you have an
>obligation to do artwork for my stuff!"). I remember that incident...
Oh, so *that* explains *everything*.
John Shughart
mhirtes
No it don't. Glen's being full of shit.
DishRoom1
>Michael Campbell wrote:
>
>(KevinHalse) wrote --
>http://www.rexx.com/~jaguar/thumbnail.html
>>
>> (Sigh) With terrie Smith it's always the same story: Ten percent of her
>> stuff you look at, drop to your knees and cry out "WE ARE NOT WORTHY!"
>>
>> The other ninety percent is just depressing.
>
> Hm. I suppose it depends on the viewer. I've seldom been disappointed
>by
>Terrie's work, and I'm always surprised to find people who express the above
>opinion.
>
Same here. :-)
John Shughart
DishRoom1
Charles Melville wrote --
>> Hm. I suppose it depends on the viewer. I've seldom been disappointed
>by
>> Terrie's work, and I'm always surprised to find people who express the
>above
>> opinion.
>>
>Yes, we all know you're her biggest fanboy on this forum. Good for you.
Wrong. I'm her biggest fanboy (joke, LOL ;-))) )
John Shughart
DishRoom1
>Charles Melville wrote:
>>
>> ilr wrote:
>> > Charles Melville wrote --
>> > > Hm. I suppose it depends on the viewer. I've seldom been
>disappointed by
>> > > Terrie's work, and I'm always surprised to find people who express the
>above
>> > > opinion.
>> > >
>> > Yes, we all know you're her biggest fanboy on this forum. Good for you.
>>
>> I won't deny it. But even that doesn't mean that the negative comments
>are necessarily
>> true, or more than envious mutterings.
>
>Oh sure. ANYthing not sung in slobbering praise of Terrie Smith is mere
>"envious mutterings".
*No one* is denying your right to free speech. Instead everyone is just
pointing out was a collossal jerk you're acting.
John Shughart
BR
> As a Terrie Smith fan, I thought the art is very cool and fluffy. :-)
Fluffy??
KevinHalse
Fluffy...
Obvious Fake. Do Not Harvest.
>
>Fluffy...
Fluffy!
******************************************************
If you want me to see your response, please post.
http://ursine.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/listing.pl
http://members.hostedscripts.com/antispam.html
******************************************************
KevinHalse
>>>Fluffy??
>>
>>Fluffy...
>
>Fluffy!
FLUFF-FAY!
mhirtes
Why? Because I dare to speak the truth?
Gabriel Gentile
> Still being a grudgemongering little shit that needs to dig up the
> ancient past? Gee, were'nt you the fucker that gave Mr. Gentile a dirty
> look when he dug up that notorious CF8 letter.
I'm warning you once to keep me out of this
Gabriel Gentile
> Oh, zing-Zing-ZING! I have been skewered! Aaarrgghh!
Can we call an ambulance for Chef of the Future?
(anyone who gets this reference deserves a pat on the back)
artist
said...
>>
>>>>Fluffy??
>>>
>>>Fluffy...
>>
>>Fluffy!
>
> FLUFF-FAY!
Mr. and Mrs. Fluff Fluff?
--
ICQ UIN# 106922763
AIM: GCCFurryBoy
Yahoo!Messenger: Okime_Kun
mell...@yahoo.com
http://users.transfur.com/white/
"Neither hope no fear" -- Isabella d'Este
"For to do either is to fall to the beast" -- Joseph Richmond
AJL
> Charles Melville wrote:
> > mhirtes wrote:
> > > It's an opinion widely held, but I'm the one with the balls big enough
> > > to dare SAY it.
> > Actually, the widely-held opinion is that you're the only one loud and obnoxious
> > enough to say it.
> While you just meekly show how much of a chickenshit, sycophant, and
> fanboy you are for commenting on how FABULOUS the Emperess' new clothes look.
Anybody notice how there's NO ONE supporting Michael Hirtes' claims,
other than the unconfirmed support from the names he pulls out of the
air?
Makes you wonder...
AJL
> All I can say is "Your memory's pretty fucked up, dude."
>
> Drugs are bad, ng'kay?
Is that what explains your behavior? Slipped off your medication, did
you?
AJL
> The issue was'nt about copyright. It was about artistic laziness.
and social ineptitude.
LancerAdvancd iBuck
then why did the post I was responding to include the bit from the copyright
FAQ?
lazy is just lazy, but when I see remarks that includes "doesn't make it right"
I think the issue is more than mere lazyness..
iBuck
Homepage at http://lanceradvanced.com/Furry
"You can have it these ways :Fancy,Correct,Quickly- Pick 2"
ilr
"AJL" <grap...@ajlvideo.com> wrote in message news:3CBF4805...@ajlvideo.com...
> > Ever huh? In what specific categorical faction of this fandom is that?
>
> Obviously, the sophisticated level of sarcasm employed by Glen's
> statement was too daunting a hurdle for your mind to transcend.
>
> ;)
...Tell that to Chuck down there...
Issarlk
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 21:25:07 +0000 (UTC), Glen Wooten <jag...@rexx.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Terrie never said she came up with those backgrounds on her own, they
>>are obviously Mucha-ish backgrounds (as it says in the description).
>
> They're more than Mucha-ish Glen, they're Mucha. The elements of the
> very backgrounds were so close that it was childsplay to identify the
> exact pictures that were used when Smith generated her version of the
> same works.
>
I agree with that, it shouldn't say just "Mucha-style" on the
descriptions that would be more honest to give more credit to Mucha and
says these picture are modification/derivative of his paintings.
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
>Anybody notice how there's NO ONE supporting Michael Hirtes' claims,
>other than the unconfirmed support from the names he pulls out of the
>air?
--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
Anthrofurry Infocenter:
http://www.xydexx.com/anthrofurry
AJL
>
> AJL wrote:
> >Anybody notice how there's NO ONE supporting Michael Hirtes' claims,
> >other than the unconfirmed support from the names he pulls out of the
> >air?
>
> Does anyone even bother reading Michael Hirtes' posts anymore?
only for the humor.
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> AJL wrote:
> >Anybody notice how there's NO ONE supporting Michael Hirtes' claims,
> >other than the unconfirmed support from the names he pulls out of the
> >air?
>
> Does anyone even bother reading Michael Hirtes' posts anymore?
I read, once in a blue moon we'll agree on something.
TT
Blackberry
I actually agreed with something he posted in a moment of sanity a while back,
but I was too scared to post about it.
--
I will shine with blinding light / Through those hearts as black as night
Sticks and stones may break my bones
But at least the seeds of love will be sown
- Tears For Fears, "Badman's Song"
mhirtes
Looks like I spoke too soon about your honoring an agreement. I guess
nothing stops you from pissing on me.
Oh well. Just another example of how shitty furry fandom is.
mhirtes
Blackberry wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:26:44 GMT, Tlalocelotl wrote:
> >
> >Karl Xydexx Jorgensen wrote:
> >>
> >> AJL wrote:
> >> >Anybody notice how there's NO ONE supporting Michael Hirtes' claims,
> >> >other than the unconfirmed support from the names he pulls out of the
> >> >air?
> >>
> >> Does anyone even bother reading Michael Hirtes' posts anymore?
> >
> > I read, once in a blue moon we'll agree on something.
>
> I actually agreed with something he posted in a moment of sanity a while back,
> but I was too scared to post about it.
Just can't STAND the fact that I can be right about _anything_, can you?
Just as I thought. Fanboys are too chickenshit to speak in support of
someone that's "unpopular", for fear of being seen as "unpopular" themselves.
Just another day in Eltingville, it seems.
mhirtes
AJL wrote:
>
>
> Anybody notice how there's NO ONE supporting Michael Hirtes' claims,
> other than the unconfirmed support from the names he pulls out of the
> air?
>
> Makes you wonder...
Well, I have'nt seen anyone confirm any of the allegations you & Glen
have made (Terrie would'nt count, because she can't talk while Glen's
drinking a glass of water).
I really wish you could have honored a simple agreement, but I guess the
urge to treat me like crap at every chance is too strong for you to
resist, isn't it?
AJL
What agreement?
AJL
What's this f*#ng agreement you are ranting about now? I think that for
there to be an agreement, I must have agreed to something somewhere...
What on earth are you talking about?
Chris Beilby
>
> only for the humor.
And there's precious little of that...
Chris Beilby
"artist" <mell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns91F5785BFB449...@24.24.0.22...
> A little bird whispered in my ear that kevin...@aol.com (KevinHalse)
> said...
>
> >>
> >>>>Fluffy??
> >>>
> >>>Fluffy...
> >>
> >>Fluffy!
> >
> > FLUFF-FAY!
>
> Mr. and Mrs. Fluff Fluff?
Let's leave Chester's tail out of this. (Heck, let's leave Chester out of
this all together...)
MarkNineHawk
Oh, good Lord, you insult Terrie Smith, then start cursing at Glen Wooten like
a 3rd grader would, then you just won't shut up. I'll agree that Mr. Wooten
shouldn't be fighting with you, I was taught that it's not a good idea that
college boys kick pre-schoolers. Terrie & Glen have done a lot for the fandom,
what have you ever done?
I will agree with Glen on one thing - why don't you just shut up? People will
think a lot better of you if we don't have to hear from you ever again.
Tamar
understanding that there would be a deadline for it, then the commission
should be done. And don't get me wrong, I like her work and respect her as
a person and artists, but I do think that she's much more versitle on her
own to have to copy from a magazine or book. But, she's good at what she
does and the general public doesn't seem to mind so I guess that's all that
matters.
--
Tamar the Ebony Leopard
http://www.extinctioners.com
http://www.geocities.com/xenif/extinctioners.html
http://www.yerf.com/howashaw
"AJL" <grap...@ajlvideo.com> wrote in message
news:3CC04721...@ajlvideo.com...
Tamar
newsgroup could begin to grasp with a history that seems to be written in
stone. Should you two take this to private e-mail cause its starting to get
silly on both sides for a viewer's stand point.
--
Tamar the Ebony Leopard
http://www.extinctioners.com
http://www.geocities.com/xenif/extinctioners.html
http://www.yerf.com/howashaw
"mhirtes" <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote in message
news:3CBF9577...@radiks.net...
>
>
> Glen "One day they will make a movie about the way I made my wife
> famous. And then they shall make me the King of the Earth. And everyone
> will have ice cream." Wooten wrote:
> >
> > mhirtes <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Glen Wooten wrote:
> > >>
> > >> You're still just pissed 'cause she stopped doing free artwork to
your
> > >> specifications on a rush order for your fanzines ("But, you have an
> > >> obligation to do artwork for my stuff!"). I remember that
incident...
> > >
> > > Boy, you took a REALLY big hit on your crack pipe to cook up that
alegation.
> >
> > Forgetting all those things from your past again, eh, Michael?
>
> Why bother having any memory at all? You seem to be doing all that for
> me.
>
> But then, the memory you have of me also seems to have me on the Grassy
> Knoll, getting Stalin ticked off at his officer corps, and other acts of
> general badassedness.
>
> > Still mad
> > at Richard Pini for not keeping up the correspondence with you ("But I
> > sent him SASE's! He's SUPPOSED to answer all my letters!")? Been
calling
> > anyone collect at 3AM local time in Australia lately?
>
> Still being a grudgemongering little shit that needs to dig up the
> ancient past? Gee, were'nt you the fucker that gave Mr. Gentile a dirty
> look when he dug up that notorious CF8 letter.
>
> As for Richard, not only has he replied, but he's also even thanked me
> publicly in his editorials.
>
> So you think I'm lying and you want proof, huh? Okay, stick THIS example
> up your ass:
>
> http://www.rwhirled.com/eq/eqletter/ed/ed9412.htm
>
> >
> > > And what was this "free" shit? Terrie had my money for months, and I
had
> > > a deadline at the time, and I wasn't about to let her go O'Connell on
> > > me. If she claims to be a "professional", then she needs to honor such
> > > things as deadlines.
> >
> > Not quite. You wanted Terrie to send you some artwork for some fanzine
> > you were doing - and she did. Then you asked her for something
special -
> > which she did (that was what you paid for, and you got it when you
wanted
> > it).
>
> Then why are you bitching about me wanting to get the commission that I
> already paid for?
>
> > Then you wanted some sort of cover, done in a specific style, RIGHT
> > AWAY! She told you that she couldn't get it to you right away, and that
> > you already had plenty of material. Your response was that you needed
> > this specific item, and that she "Owed it to the fandom to GIVE it to
you
> > for use in your fanzine." She told you to pound dirt, as I recall.
>
> All I can say is "Your memory's pretty fucked up, dude."
>
> Drugs are bad, ng'kay?
>
> >
> > Of course, I recall you back in EQ fandom, when Terrie was doing furry
> > stuff, and sent you some. You responded that you didn't want any of
that
> > furry stuff, only elves. So, for someone who's "been in the fandom
longer
> > than most", why did you reject it at first? Waiting till the EQ fandom
> > finally kicked you out?
>
> Ex-use me? What bullshit are you puking out now? It's obvious that
> you're taking stuff and amplifying it to bullshit levels just to
> entertain the slobbering AFFholes here, but let's not start fabricating
> outright lies.
>
> If you think you're so right, then show me the letter in Richard's own
> handwriting that sez I was eightballed, loser.
>
> Meanwhile, go back to pimping pix of Chester's nadsack to the goobers
> and stfu.
AJL
>
> Well, there was a valid claim. If a commission was taken with the
> understanding that there would be a deadline for it, then the commission
> should be done. And don't get me wrong, I like her work and respect her as
If you follow the thread closely enough, you will see that there WAS
indeed a commission, and that artwork purchased in that commission WAS
produced. Then Michael Hirtes demanded ADDITIONAL artwork for the cover
of his book, but with NO ADDITIONAL PAY for this new, rush-order
request. Michael claimed that it should be done for free, because Terri
owed it to the fandom. Terri was not about to drop everything else to
*donate* an extra piece to Michael, and that's what he's whining about.
The contract (ie: the money paid for the commission, and the delivery of
said artwork) was completed. Michael is ranting about not receiving the
additional artwork, for no additional funds, and on VERY short notice.
The fact that he keeps telling that story as a commission-gone-bad is
why Glen has to keep jumping in here to correct him.
The fact hat Glen won't let him believe his little fantasy makes Michael
call him things like "Terri's Pimp" and he then makes up stories about
how Terri's work is heartless and blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum.
Michael is a sorry, demented little troll, who always has to get the
last word in... and can *never* be wrong, no, not Michael. There *is*
entertainment value in it, though... because he is so obsessive about
this, he can never shut up. When he is about to lose one argument, he
attacks someone else with whatever hate-filled lie he can ome up with to
diert attention from the fact that he is losing the argument.
I wonder who he is going to defame next?
Tamar
Tamar
KevinHalse
>this all together...)
>
>
Chester's fluffy fluff is the fluffiest fluff to ever fluff fluff!
Chris Beilby
Tamar
Tamar
Tamar
like what, 20 postings afterwards or something, but yes, I have the other
side of the story now.
Personally I think this is getting nuts. Mike would have been better off
commenting on the art than on the people, at least in that respect there
were some valid points, but I can't support the name calling.
--
Tamar the Ebony Leopard
http://www.extinctioners.com
http://www.geocities.com/xenif/extinctioners.html
http://www.yerf.com/howashaw
"AJL" <grap...@ajlvideo.com> wrote in message
news:3CC09A5D...@ajlvideo.com...
Tamar
newsgroup could begin to grasp with a history that seems to be written in
stone. Should you two take this to private e-mail cause its starting to get
silly on both sides for a viewer's stand point.
--
Tamar the Ebony Leopard
http://www.extinctioners.com
http://www.geocities.com/xenif/extinctioners.html
http://www.yerf.com/howashaw
"mhirtes" <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote in message
Argentium G. Tiger
wrote:
>I agree with that, it shouldn't say just "Mucha-style" on the
>descriptions that would be more honest to give more credit to Mucha and
>says these picture are modification/derivative of his paintings.
This might provide some guidance as to derivative works and how to
properly approach their creation and release:
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ14.pdf
Fair Use:
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/fls/fl102.pdf
Another resource is going directly to the U.S. Code, Chapter 17,
Section 107 (Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use)
Here's a convenient link.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=17&sec=107
That site provides a link to "Notes"
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/chapters/1/sections/section_107_notes.html
In the notes you'll find some interesting reading.
I'm trying to determine if Mucha's works are copyrighted by the Mucha
Foundation, or the Mucha Trust, or if his works have lapsed into the
Public Domain.
Anyone have clear evidence one way or the other?
--
Argentium G. Tiger (ag42...@kc42.rr.com)
Corruption, vice, and debauchery! I do so love churches. }:>
There are no numbers in my real email address.
Kyle L. Webb
>
>
> I wonder who he is going to defame next?
Ooh! Ooh! Me! Me!
*bounce* *bounce* *wave*
Kyle L. Webb
Hartree Fox on yiffnet
(*pout* I can't even get Gabriel to say mean things about me...;)
LancerAdvancd iBuck
What year did the artist die?
iBuck
Homepage at http://lanceradvanced.com/Furry
"You can have it these ways :Fancy,Correct,Quickly- Pick 2"
mhirtes
You're right. it takes teo to agree, and you ignored my proposal.
mhirtes
Chestr into anything that's fluffy (or has a hole, or a pulse, or....)
mhirtes
MarkNineHawk wrote:
>
>
> Oh, good Lord, you insult Terrie Smith, then start cursing at Glen Wooten like
> a 3rd grader would, then you just won't shut up. I'll agree that Mr. Wooten
> shouldn't be fighting with you, I was taught that it's not a good idea that
> college boys kick pre-schoolers. Terrie & Glen have done a lot for the fandom,
Like.....?
All i've seen is some lackluster prints, and lackluster prints that were
swiped from other real artists, which is where this thread began.
mhirtes
AJL wrote:
>
> Tamar wrote:
> >
> > Well, there was a valid claim. If a commission was taken with the
> > understanding that there would be a deadline for it, then the commission
> > should be done. And don't get me wrong, I like her work and respect her as
>
> If you follow the thread closely enough, you will see that there WAS
> indeed a commission, and that artwork purchased in that commission WAS
> produced. Then Michael Hirtes demanded ADDITIONAL artwork for the cover
> of his book, but with NO ADDITIONAL PAY for this new, rush-order
> request.
I _requested_ that she could _contribute_ to the zine (ie, nothing
specifif like a commission is).
There's a big dif between a _contribution_ and a _commission_.
I made a _request_, but there was NO _demand_.
I now suppose you're going to call me a liar, in spite of the fact that
*I* was the one that made the request (were you intercepting the emails
between Terrie & I?).
To you, it's ALWAYS the other guy who is right, even if it was down to
me vs. Bin laden, would'nt it be, Darell?
> Michael claimed that it should be done for free, because Terri
> owed it to the fandom.
What a lair, what a big liar, what a big FUCKING liar you are.
> Terri was not about to drop everything else to
> *donate* an extra piece to Michael, and that's what he's whining about.
No, it's what you are falsely accusing (still no proof to your
allegations has been provided, I noticed).
>
> The contract (ie: the money paid for the commission, and the delivery of
> said artwork) was completed.
And that was that. I also asked her if she'd like to contribute (is that arm-twisting?).
> Michael is ranting about not receiving the
> additional artwork, for no additional funds, and on VERY short notice.
Again, you're a liar.
>
> The fact that he keeps telling that story as a commission-gone-bad is
> why Glen has to keep jumping in here to correct him.
If anyone wants to bother looking thru Google, it was'nt me who started
it. It was either you or Glen (don't remember which, and I really don't
freaking care either) that decided to bring it up, as yet another
example on how eagerly you like to give me shit.
>
> The fact hat Glen won't let him believe his little fantasy makes Michael
> call him things like "Terri's Pimp"
Well let's face it! What IS the guy doing besides living off the wages
of his wife's prints? Even when it comes to the net, it's always Glen
that's posting, not Terrie.
> and he then makes up stories about
> how Terri's work is heartless and blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum.
The word was "soulless", not "heartless".
And let's face it again. Can her characters get any MORE bland-faced?
>
> Michael is a sorry, demented little troll,
And Darell is the fanboy asswipe that loves him so.
> who always has to get the
> last word in... and can *never* be wrong, no, not Michael.
I'll accept being wrong on matters I actually AM wrong on. I'm not going
accept blame for things that people LIE about, however.
> There *is*
> entertainment value in it, though...
Yeah, it's called "being a fucker".
> because he is so obsessive about
> this, he can never shut up.
Again, you seem to think I'm just gonna bow down and be your bitch. When
will you ever learn that I'm not going to just stand there and let
anyone push me around?
> When he is about to lose one argument, he
> attacks someone else with whatever hate-filled lie he can ome up with to
> diert attention from the fact that he is losing the argument.
I'm not the one to lie (you've got that distinction), and let's not
"diert" from the original topic, which was Terrie's ripping from other artists.
>
> I wonder who he is going to defame next?
Probably the next dickhead who thinks he can try to make me feel small.
mhirtes
Tamar wrote:
>
> OKay okay, I read that after reading the message before posting. That was
> like what, 20 postings afterwards or something, but yes, I have the other
> side of the story now.
>
> Personally I think this is getting nuts. Mike would have been better off
> commenting on the art than on the people, at least in that respect there
> were some valid points, but I can't support the name calling.
>
How can you pan the art without blaming the artist responsible?