Spoogless CF10
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
out of furridom with the announcement of the legal hassles of the Hotel
versus SanDiego versus CF10. (short form- no sex or nudity product at the
con, period).
Should be an "interesting" con.
Jim Doolittle
Clark/Steve Gallacci) wrote:
> Should be an "interesting" con.
Heh. I forsee much flaming, in the future...
-Jim
--------------------------------------------------------
| Jim Doolittle Fuzzy Logic E-Zine |
| dool...@uiuc.edu http://fuzzylogic.betterbox.net |
--------------------------------------------------------
Kyle L. Webb
>
> Well, it seems that the fandom will have its first test of taking the sex
> out of furridom with the announcement of the legal hassles of the Hotel
> versus SanDiego versus CF10. (short form- no sex or nudity product at the
> con, period).
>
"Interesting" to say the least. If true, it won't affect me much
directly, as I'm not all that much into erotic art, but I foresee some
angry dealers and artists who will have quite a crimp put into their
sales.
I wonder if this was something that "just happened". We've had at least
one pretty detailed call on this group for targeting hotels and vice
squads etc with inflammatory information (our dear old John T. Baptist).
Does anyone know how this started, or if there have been people throwing
gasoline on an existing fire?
I agree with Jim Doolittle. I foresee much flaming ahead.
Kyle L. Webb
Hartree Fox on yiffnet
Sun-stone
> Well, it seems that the fandom will have its first test of
> taking the sex
> out of furridom with the announcement of the legal hassles of
> the Hotel
> versus SanDiego versus CF10. (short form- no sex or nudity
> product at the
> con, period).
>
> Should be an "interesting" con.
Yep. Chinese-style "interesting times" ahead.
Let's wait for some official explanation from the CF gang
though. Perhaps they can come to some sort of arrangement with
the hotel.
However, if this news turns out to be true, and CF can't come to
an arrangement that will satisfy artists and dealers (who stand
to be hurt by this), then CF will most likely no longer continue
in the future. They won't recover from this.
Cheers;
J. J.
Scotty Arsenault
>
> Well, it seems that the fandom will have its first test of taking the sex
> out of furridom with the announcement of the legal hassles of the Hotel
> versus SanDiego versus CF10. (short form- no sex or nudity product at the
> con, period).
>
> Should be an "interesting" con.
Yeh!!
--
Scotty Arsenault
Yerf.com
Graf
Doodles wrote in message <36ffd3a9...@206.165.3.70>...
>Something that's important for any who may feel upset over this change
>in Confurence: Please do _not_ bother the hotel about it. No matter
>what is going on, any sort of harassment of the hotel or it's staff
>will only inflame tempers and make any possible last-minute
>concessions the staff may be working out impossible.
>
>I repeat: Do _not_ bother the Town and Country. Let the con staff
>handle this development.
>
>Thank you for listening.
I agree. Besides, it's taken care of. The hotel IS letting the con stay,
they could not have. New rules for the artshow and for dealers have been
passed around and are getting out there. It IS taken care of.
--Tygger L. Graf, hoping this won't blow up...
Graf
It's been taken care of. New rules are being passed around. Glen, I
suggest that they are posted here so that they can be passed around further.
If people follow the new rules and if they're warned at the start of the con
when they set up, then things should be just fine. Tho there are always
some idiots who will push them. If these problem children can be watched,
then things should be okay.
The ironic thing is that it's been warned that something like would happen
some day. But it's like the boy who cried wolf: many warnings and when it
finally does happen it catches many by suprise. Ah well.
--Tygger L. Graf, kinda glad she didn't get those pin ups done...
Sun-stone
> I got email from Glen Wooten, associated with the art show.
> And to
> clairfy, there might be some accomodation to product in the
> dealers room
> if kept VERY secure, but apperently, that is still being
> hashed out.
After a few minutes of thinking .... I came to a new perspective
on this.
Although this seems like a setback for artists, dealers, art
show types, etc. .. this may very well turn out to be one of the
best things that has ever happened to anthropomorphics fandom in
the long run.! O_O
Eroticism in art and literature *does* have a place; I
personally have seen some anthropomorphic erotic art that I
thought was great. But the whole scene has perhaps gotten a bit
out of hand. There is too much of it ... and too much fetish
stuff like bondage, very nasty violent material, and ... ummm
... the sort of stuff Doug Winger does. I recently tried to look
at recent uploads on a furry archive and was *very* disturbed by
some of the material I saw. Maybe this will take the genre back
to the sort of things that once piqued our interest in it ...
quality art and stories. Maybe the presentation of erotic
material will be handled more discreetly and it will be more
tasteful -- more like a celebration of love than a display of
degradation and exploitation that it has sometimes turned into.
It will be integrated into stories and art rather than being the
only thing.
I don't support censorship and there is a place for well-done
erotica, but this just might be the thing to set the balance
right within the fandom again.
Just thinking, ya know. ::shrugifies::
o/~ always look on the bright side of life o/~
::Stops singing before someone strangles him:: ^_~
Cheers;
J. J.
Peter da Silva
Sun-stone <umno...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>However, if this news turns out to be true, and CF can't come to
>an arrangement that will satisfy artists and dealers (who stand
>to be hurt by this), then CF will most likely no longer continue
>in the future. They won't recover from this.
Come on, it can't be so erotica-oriented that one G-R-rated year will sink
the con, or even make a dent in most artist's sales.
--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
"[I]f we can make a society that's reasonably safe for women then men should be
reasonably safe from the occasional same-gender advance too." -- Anthony DeBoer
Sun-stone
> Come on, it can't be so erotica-oriented that one G-R-rated
> year will sink
> the con, or even make a dent in most artist's sales.
Yeah ... but if an artist paid lots of money to come to a con to
sell material that they can then no longer sell ... will they
come back? And it would be kinda hard for CF to turn around and
sell itself as "furrydom's PG-rated con" when their image has
not reflected that in the past.
It does seem, though, that arrangements are being worked out. If
CF can keep *most*, not all, but most, happy, then they should
be all right. I do want to wish CF the best in getting through
this last-minute bombshell.
Also note: I've posted a message elsewhere speculating that this
just might be the shake-up the fandom needs.
Cheers;
J. J.
Atara
Sun-stone wrote:
>
> Peter da Silva wrote:
>
> > Come on, it can't be so erotica-oriented that one G-R-rated
> > year will sink
> > the con, or even make a dent in most artist's sales.
>
> Yeah ... but if an artist paid lots of money to come to a con to
> sell material that they can then no longer sell ... will they
> come back? And it would be kinda hard for CF to turn around and
> sell itself as "furrydom's PG-rated con" when their image has
> not reflected that in the past.
On the other paw, it might attract artists who have decided to skip CF
because of it's "reputation," or who have decided not to return because
of problems. Besides, you can't tell me that an artist who does artwork
to sell just *won't do* non-spooge art. If it sells, they'll draw it.
> Also note: I've posted a message elsewhere speculating that this
> just might be the shake-up the fandom needs.
Agreed.
--
Atara
"I've got a pantheon of animals
in a pagan soul..." -Rush
http://www.FurNation.com/Atara/
Mark Loggins
anything here, but I think there are a few things people should consider.
Like who told the hotel and why? The easy thing to do is blame the BFs, of
course, but chances are they wouldn't have done it. Why? Because they know
they'd get blamed for it, so why bother. I'm sure whoever did this wants to
remain secret and is counting on people not looking at him because they're
blaming the BFs. Also, what if this is just the beginning? Like, what if
more con activities are reported to the authorities. Hell, doesn't even have
to be correct. A few plains clothes vice cops could be wandering the con.
And since someone suggest on this ng that some spooge my be smuggled in, the
person who ratted might inform the hotel of that. Seems like to me that
there will be another shoe dropping at the con. But on the other hand,
why're you all so worried and upset about this? I don't know how many times
I've been told the furry fandom isn't about sex, but now I read in this
furry fandom forum how the lack of spooge will kill the fandom's foremost
con! Now that's really interesting. And another thing. Why are you all so
worried about being ratted out when you've done nothing illegal? If the cops
come and you've not broken the law, why sweat it? Unless there are bodies
buried in the back yard, you shouldn't mind people digging back there.
Anyway.. Those are just some thing I'm wondering.
--Random
Sun-stone
> I don't know how many times
> I've been told the furry fandom isn't about sex, but now I
> read in this
> furry fandom forum how the lack of spooge will kill the
> fandom's foremost
> con!
Well ... you're right, the furry fandom *isn't* about sex . And
I don't think that a lack of X-rated stuff will kill any con of
and by itself (but keep in mind that the definition that's been
used seems to cover even _Playboy_-style nudes, which widens the
net quite a bit). I seem to have been misunderstood on that
point, and I would certainly like to clarify what I meant. I'm
no flamer and I am just trying to raise some points in a
constructive manner. I would like to see each and every con
succeed and forewarned is forearmed. yadda yadda.
An abrupt change in direction a week before a show could stand
to hurt some people, especially since it marks a change from
what has been experienced at the past. Therefore, there may well
be some hurt and angry feelings. CF will have to reach out to
those people to try to make things right. If they don't, then
people will not be pleased with their con experience and may not
return. Too many absent artists = a seriously damaged con.
One thing, for example, that the convention staff could do is
refund the table and convention fees for any artist who stands
to be seriously harmed by this. It would show care and concern
for the artists and would greatly increase the chances that they
would work *with* the con to overcome this and would return next
year with PG-rated material only.
That's all I'm really saying.
> Now that's really interesting. And another thing. Why are you
> all so
> worried about being ratted out when you've done nothing
> illegal?
Well ... I'm not even going to the con. ::smiles:: But I
wouldn't like to see any of my favorite artists hurt by
restrictions that are quite repressive (no nudity in an art show
... wanna try that at the Louvre by chance?). I have said that
in the long run this could be turned into a positive
development, but we've got to take care of everyone's feelings.
I think that this is about all I'll say on this. I'm bowing out
before this gets too hot.
I simply offer my warmest wishes to all the artists that they
come through this unexpected change all right. ^_^
As you can see Mark, I took your questions at face value and
responded politely -- no one benefits from flames. Right?
::smiles::
Cheers;
J. J., getting ready for work ta-morrow
Sun-stone
> On the other paw, it might attract artists who have decided to
> skip CF
> because of it's "reputation," or who have decided not to
> return because
> of problems. Besides, you can't tell me that an artist who
> does artwork
> to sell just *won't do* non-spooge art. If it sells, they'll
> draw it.
That's a good point, Atara! However, to make this transition, CF
will have to change its strategy to reach out to those people,
and they will have to let people think that this change is
permanent. I also think that artists will adjust their content
and portfolios to suit a con ... the problem is that many
artists mix PG and R and even some X material together. This
will leave them with less to sell, at least this time.
Thanks for your polite and optimistic points, Atara. The fandom
needs more people like you.
Cheers;
J. J.
Atara
>
> Atara wrote:
>
> > On the other paw, it might attract artists who have decided to skip CF because of it's "reputation," or
> > who have decided not to return because of problems. Besides, you can't tell me that an artist who does
> > artwork to sell just *won't do* non-spooge art. If it sells, they'll draw it.
>
> That's a good point, Atara! However, to make this transition, CF
> will have to change its strategy to reach out to those people,
> and they will have to let people think that this change is
> permanent. I also think that artists will adjust their content
> and portfolios to suit a con ... the problem is that many
> artists mix PG and R and even some X material together. This
> will leave them with less to sell, at least this time.
True, artists *are* going to be hurt this time... I hope the con will do
something to help them out. But I think it'll be better in the long run,
at least for the "public image" that a lot of folks are worried about.
> Thanks for your polite and optimistic points, Atara. The fandom needs more people like you.
Oh, no... Nobody wants more of me around! What fun would that be? ;)
Atara
>
> Aeto, in the (probably futile) hope
> to sidetrack a potential flame fest
> before it starts.
See, we just have to dig some trenches so that the flames will run away
from the newsgroup and into the ocean.
*Pulls out a large map and spreads it out*
Ok. We need three dug here, and a pool on this end to store the flammage
before it spills into the canals. *Stands up and jingles the keys to her
backhoe*
Any volunteers? =)
Allen Kitchen
Peter da Silva wrote:
> Come on, it can't be so erotica-oriented that one G-R-rated year will sink
> the con, or even make a dent in most artist's sales.
If the con can't survive without erotica present, then perhaps
the con needs to be re-evaluated as being the Primary convention of furry
fandom. As I've said before; there is much more to being furry than just sex.
This might be a good year to remind ourselves of that...
Allen Kitchen (still postcon blue, so keep your flames to yourself lest you get bit)
Crassus Destanion
news:bevnsagF...@netcom.com...
> Well, it seems that the fandom will have its first test of taking the sex
> out of furridom with the announcement of the legal hassles of the Hotel
> versus SanDiego versus CF10. (short form- no sex or nudity product at the
> con, period).
>
> Should be an "interesting" con.
Ok, the wildfire is spreading, I knew it was gonna happen.
Please note, the following is NOT an official statement, but something from
someone who really doesn't like 300+ chain-posts posted to something this
simple. Now that that's over, I have a few things to say to clear up
confusion and rumors:
The following is NOT an official statement:
The following is NOT an official statement:
The following is NOT an official statement:
The following is NOT an official statement:
Made myself clear?
#1 FACT: Yes. It is true that pornography, either real or drawn of any sort
(ie: nipples, erotic organs, sexual situations, etc) will not be allowed to
be PUBLICLY DISPLAYED at any of the public convention spaces. This includes
the Art Show, Artist's Alley, or Den of Dealers.
#2 FACT: Post-it stickies are no exception to this rule.
#3 FACT: The reason for ALL of this is because the hotel has something
called a liquor license. What does liquor have to do with porn? Well, it
goes like this: From within a certain amount of distance away from a
licensed distributor of alchoholic beverages, pornography is not allowed to
be sold. The law goes WAYYY back during times of prohibition...
(figures).... Since the hotel has a special license qualifiying the ENTIRE
HOTEL to be a licensed distributor of alchoholic beverages, it means that
there is no place that can be allowed for ConFurence to display anything
over PG-13 rated art or photographs. IF anyone is caught selling anything of
this nature, the hotel can lose its license which they have hard-worked to
attain.
#4 FACT: The hotel staff has promised to uphold this rule.
#5 FACT: The hotel does not care what the hell we do PRIVATELY. The only
reason why they aren't allowing us to do anything publicly is the damn
liquor license. This has nothing to do about personal opinions of furry
fandom, lifestyles, preference, or artistic license. It's about legal issues
regarding if people get drunk and say in the ol' George Carlin Style,
"WWOOW!! Look at the boobs on HER!!"
#6 FACT: The Cabaret Fur-Le-Dance cannot go beyond PG-13.
#7 FACT: This is not the hotel's fault. This is in the jurisdiction of
California State Law. Blame the lawmakers from Al Capone's era for this.
#8 FACT: ConFurence is working WITH the hotel for better arrangements. No
shittin' you here, they're working on it.
--
As far as official statements made by the CF staff? I don't know if there
will be. I don't even know WHY there would be. There's really no reason for
one as far as I can see. We know what's allowed and what isn't. If you have
doubts about whether something is right or not, DON'T DO IT.
Believe me when I say that just like any other yiffy fur, I'm disapointed
about this, but for crying out loud, porn isn't all that I go to a
convention for. I go to see good friends, spend time being with other furs..
being myself, being a fur, just for a short period of time before going back
to the dull hyooman life that I lead.
--
Personal opinion? I think the fandom could use this for its own good in the
long-run. This is a chance to show every single mundaine, protestor, BURNED
FUR (which I am NOT, to clear THAT up), and most of all, the PRESS. (Yes,
several lurking, evil press-personel will be at the convention. I wanna show
them that I'm not a pervert, I'm not an outcast, or a porn-crazed lunatic
who strokes myself at everything I see. Yes, I'm bisexual. Yes I'm a
zoophile. Yes I draw erotic artwork of very taboo subjects. But these things
have no relevance over my personal integrity. I AM a person who enjoys the
fandom I'm in because it's me. It's who I am. Pornography isn't as important
as other things in life.
If anyone has any questions regarding any of this or what I've said just
now, go ahead and email me at webm...@confurence.com .. I'll try to help
out as much as I can and maybe ideas will start flowing to make things
better. I have direct communication with Mink and Sylys, so please, if you
will, go through me, not directly to them. They have enough going on in
their life as it is without having major panics start over nothing.
We have a convention to put on! Let's do this and do it together.
--Crassus D.
Crassus Destanion
sort
> (ie: nipples, erotic organs, sexual situations, etc) will not be allowed
to
> be PUBLICLY DISPLAYED at any of the public convention spaces. This
includes
> the Art Show, Artist's Alley, or Den of Dealers
Little something to change here.. I checked with the staff about it. Even
*I* got something mixed up.
Not "PUBLICLY DISPLAYED".. it's "ON THE PROPERTY".. those are the words of
the hotel staff.. the only exception to this is in people's private hotel
rooms. You can pretty much do anything in there. I'd expect a lotta art
parties to be held, actually.
yknow, that wouldn't be a bad idea now that I think of it....
--Crassus D.
Chris Johnson
(Richard Chandler - WA Resident) wrote:
> My understanding about how this affects Gallery so far is that I'll have to
> bag my books and not allow people to open them. This really fucking
pisses me
> off.
Er. Do they become not 'on the property' if they are wrapped in brown paper?
'on the property' seems to suggest that you can't take the stuff into
the hotel at all, no matter how many envelopes you keep it in. Of course,
the only way to find out is to open the envelope. Is there an
understanding that there will be no entrapment, no plainclothes guy buying
an envelope, opening it, and busting the hotel?
Jinx_tigr, spotting a danger point
(aka Chris Johnson)
Farthing W. Fox
> Well, it seems that the fandom will have its first test of taking the sex
> out of furridom with the announcement of the legal hassles of the Hotel
> versus SanDiego versus CF10. (short form- no sex or nudity product at the
> con, period).
>
> Should be an "interesting" con.
I've heard rumors about it, but haven't seen any announcement yet.
Where should we be looking?
--
F W Fox
f...@vulpes.net
Doodles
Gallacci) wrote:
>Well, it seems that the fandom will have its first test of taking the sex
>out of furridom with the announcement of the legal hassles of the Hotel
>versus SanDiego versus CF10. (short form- no sex or nudity product at the
>con, period).
Oy ve iz mir.
>Should be an "interesting" con.
In the Chinese sense...
Unca Spooge, wondering what fun will ensue.
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
Farthing W. Fox <f...@vulpes.net> wrote:
>Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci wrote:
>> Well, it seems that the fandom will have its first test of taking the sex
>> out of furridom with the announcement of the legal hassles of the Hotel
>> versus SanDiego versus CF10. (short form- no sex or nudity product at the
>> con, period).
>>
>
>
>Where should we be looking?
I got email from Glen Wooten, associated with the art show. And to
clairfy, there might be some accomodation to product in the dealers room
if kept VERY secure, but apperently, that is still being hashed out.
it seems that the con was narked out to the hotel and local authorities
for being a cess-pool of beasti- and pedi- porn and such.
Doodles
in Confurence: Please do _not_ bother the hotel about it. No matter
what is going on, any sort of harassment of the hotel or it's staff
will only inflame tempers and make any possible last-minute
concessions the staff may be working out impossible.
I repeat: Do _not_ bother the Town and Country. Let the con staff
handle this development.
Thank you for listening.
Unca Spooge, figuring that flames will hit any second...
Glen Wooten
>
> It's been taken care of. New rules are being passed around. Glen, I
> suggest that they are posted here so that they can be passed around further.
WOAH!
Um, I'm not the official contact for ConFurence, I can't make any
announcements like that. All I can say is "nothing over PG-13 can be
displayed in public - pasties or not. This applies to all areas of the
hotel." If there are any work-arounds, you'll be informed about them.
And, on a paranoid note, whoever did this in the first place has access
to this board as well. Might I suggest NOT discussing ways to get around
the situation? R+ stuff CANNOT be displayed in any manner. The rest,
let's wait for official announcements.
--
Glen Wooten
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| primary: jag...@netcom.com | secondary: glen....@fanciful.org |
_______________________________________________________________________
| Terrie's web page: http://members.aol.com/amperprodx/littlepaw.html |
_______________________________________________________________________
Michael Pena
I hope ConFurence puts out an official announcement soon, as this
could hurt me quite badly. Especially since although there is no sex
in any of the pieces I am bringing, all but two feature nudity.
Oh my! To have planned to attend for a long time and then have this
happen is somewhat distressing :(
Sincerely,
Michael Angel Peña(AKA Sparrow...A Rabbit crossing his ears for good
luck)
Artist-Laughing Rabbit Graphics
http://lonestar.texas.net/~sparrow/sparrow.htm
Aetobatus
>Well, it seems that the fandom will have its first test of taking the sex
>out of furridom with the announcement of the legal hassles of the Hotel
>versus SanDiego versus CF10. (short form- no sex or nudity product at the
>con, period).
Wow.
Now I wish I had found the time and money to make it to CF10, if just
to see a CF without any spooge whatsoever.
>Should be an "interesting" con.
That's an understatement. How does this affect things like the
FurLeDance and various (obviously unofficial) PDA's you see around the
lobby late into the evening? (Yeah, I know you personally may not
have the answer, but I figure someone does.)
All in all, I'm not sure if the change is a bad thing at all, but
that's another story. :>
Aeto, wondering if he can make
last-minute plans. :>
--
Aetobatus, Kelekona a'a o' O'ahu, Hawai'i. http://www.lava.net/~aetobat/
Keeper of Alfandria, THE social Dragon MUCK.
http://www.chameleon.net/alfandria/
telnet://alfandria.chameleon.net:8888
[The E-mail address is munged. Remove the spamtrap, but leave the number]
Aetobatus
>Oh, this is an interesting developement, isn't it? I don't wanna stir up
>anything here, but I think there are a few things people should consider.
>Like who told the hotel and why? The easy thing to do is blame the BFs, of
>course, but chances are they wouldn't have done it. Why? Because they know
While I may not agree with the BF folks on much of anything, I think
it is important to keep in mind that this would *not* be at all in
line with general statements that have made: Most, if not all,
statements I have seen make it very clear that BF is not against
"spooge" or other adult materials, so while some individual members
may want to see that sort of thing change, the group as a whole, as
far as I know, doesn't.
While I don't really care for the BF movement as a whole, I no more
want to see them getting blamed for things they didn't do than I do
the other side of the argument.
Aeto, in the (probably futile) hope
to sidetrack a potential flame fest
before it starts.
Farlo
>it seems that the con was narked out to the hotel and local authorities
>for being a cess-pool of beasti- and pedi- porn and such.
Church Lady/
Let's see - who do we know that would do something like that?
Could it be SATAN?
/Church Lady
Hasn't stuff like this happened before?
Don't the local authorities eventually get tired of the baseless
accussations?
Things will work out fine, IMO ...
Farlo
Urban Fey Dragon
Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay
<7dmrb5$qtr$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>...
>Oh, this is an interesting developement, isn't it?
Not really. It's kinda been expected and to a degree,
needed. Now and hopefully forever, the subject of 'openly
explicit sex' will be addressed at every con in the future and
hopefully again, there will be a happy solution for everyone. I
would purrsonally love to see managers try to seperate the more
sexually explicit element of Cons so they can be enjoyed by those
who want to see a clean Con *and* anyone who wants to enjoy the
adult stuff.
>
>I don't wanna stir up anything here,
Then why even start? ;)
>
>but I think there are a few things people should consider.
>Like who told the hotel and why? The easy thing to do is blame
the BFs, of
>course,...
Or have someone like Mark Loggins jump in, waving BF around
when *no-one* yet has even suggested them. Thanks but no thanks,
Randkitty. <*Smooch* :>
=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=====
====+
Victry 'love long and perspire; Vixy' Hyzenthlay
Technofox and personal Vixen. "YIP!"
Furry Fan with a Furry Lifestyle... AND a life! ;>
_____________________
/ \ _
)""""\___ |- - - - - - - - - - - -| |_\____
)----| |\-| Vivacious Vixen II |-/| | |\
)____|___|=============================| """|_)
`----' \|http://members.Xoom.com/Vixy |/"""""
"""|"""""""/"""""\"""""""|"""
Victry{nospam}@- `=++++=" "=++++=' -@{remove}juno;com
Please post any response to this newsgroup. Thanks.
Roz Gibson
>
>
>#3 FACT: The reason for ALL of this is because the hotel has something
>called a liquor license. What does liquor have to do with porn? Well, it
>goes like this: From within a certain amount of distance away from a
>licensed distributor of alchoholic beverages, pornography is not allowed to
>be sold.
This development won't really effect my stuff or Huzzah. I only have 2 NC-17
pieces out of a dozen pics done for the con (although they were really nice.
Oh well. I should have prints anyways.)
What I'm scratching my head over is the above statement. Every con I've been
to has been in a hotel where they've served booze, and there's never been a
problem with adult stuff (pertaining to the liquor license.)
If someone did 'narc' the con hotel, they seriously need to get a life. The
only thing I'll lament is that the art show will have far less entertainment
value than in years past.
And I'll still wonder about all those other hotels that served booze...
Roz G.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> And I'll still wonder about all those other hotels that served booze...
Apparently there's a difference between an ordinary Bar license, and a Resort
License. One advantage of the latter is it allows a Cash Bar to be set up
anywhere on the grounds. They are hard to get. the disadvantage has been
illustrated by this utter asshole who made the trouble.
My understanding about how this affects Gallery so far is that I'll have to
bag my books and not allow people to open them. This really fucking pisses me
off.
--
The greatest tragedy is that the same species that achieved space flight,
a cure for polio, and the transistor, is also featured nightly on COPS.
-- Richard Chandler
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
Nick "Singe" Bousman
>
> In article <36FED087...@cc.umanitoba.ca>,
> Sun-stone <umno...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
> >However, if this news turns out to be true, and CF can't come to
> >an arrangement that will satisfy artists and dealers (who stand
> >to be hurt by this), then CF will most likely no longer continue
> >in the future. They won't recover from this.
>
> the con, or even make a dent in most artist's sales.
Not to speak for anyone else, but while the majority of my art is clean, the
majority of my sales ALWAYS turns out to come from the erotica. It would dent
_my_ sales, that's for sure. :)
-Nick "Singe" Bousman
Mark Loggins
In article <7dn7oo$n31$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, "Victry \"Vixy\" Hyzenthlay"
<n...@na.net> wrote:
> Or have someone like Mark Loggins jump in, waving BF around
> when *no-one* yet has even suggested them. Thanks but no thanks,
> Randkitty.
Um, actually, I was trying to head off people blaming the BFs before it
started, but don't let the facts get in your way.
--Random
lonely...@newwave.net
Sun-stone <umno...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
> Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci wrote:
>
> > I got email from Glen Wooten, associated with the art show.
> > And to
> > clairfy, there might be some accomodation to product in the
> > dealers room
> > if kept VERY secure, but apperently, that is still being
> > hashed out.
>
> on this.
>
> Although this seems like a setback for artists, dealers, art
> show types, etc. .. this may very well turn out to be one of the
> best things that has ever happened to anthropomorphics fandom in
> the long run.! O_O
>
> Eroticism in art and literature *does* have a place; I
> personally have seen some anthropomorphic erotic art that I
> thought was great. But the whole scene has perhaps gotten a bit
> out of hand. There is too much of it ... and too much fetish
> stuff like bondage, very nasty violent material, and ... ummm
> ... the sort of stuff Doug Winger does. I recently tried to look
> at recent uploads on a furry archive and was *very* disturbed by
> some of the material I saw. Maybe this will take the genre back
> to the sort of things that once piqued our interest in it ...
> quality art and stories. Maybe the presentation of erotic
> material will be handled more discreetly and it will be more
> tasteful -- more like a celebration of love than a display of
> degradation and exploitation that it has sometimes turned into.
> It will be integrated into stories and art rather than being the
> only thing.
>
> I don't support censorship and there is a place for well-done
> erotica, but this just might be the thing to set the balance
> right within the fandom again.
>
> Just thinking, ya know. ::shrugifies::
>
> o/~ always look on the bright side of life o/~
>
> ::Stops singing before someone strangles him:: ^_~
>
> Cheers;
> J. J.
>
Yeesh. Irony upon ironies. I originally intended to go to AC99, because it
reportedly had the least porn and the best policies on art *in my opinion*,
anyhow. But I had to cancel, because I found out the art policies weren't
quite as firm as the information posted led me to believe. Now I find out
CF10-- the 'con I intended to avoid like the plague -- is the only
*completely spooge free con* in existence... And, if I recall correctly, cf10
is FAR too soon for me to even *think* about going.... due to how much
advance time I have to give for my vacation, and how long it takes me to save
up cash. Arrrgh. Ben Bruin
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Amy 'Amara' Pronovost
around by rabid Ewoks for posting this drivel!
>>
>> Yeah ... but if an artist paid lots of money to come to a con to
>> sell material that they can then no longer sell ... will they
>> come back? And it would be kinda hard for CF to turn around and
>> sell itself as "furrydom's PG-rated con" when their image has
>> not reflected that in the past.
>
>On the other paw, it might attract artists who have decided to skip CF
>because of it's "reputation," or who have decided not to return because
>of problems. Besides, you can't tell me that an artist who does artwork
>to sell just *won't do* non-spooge art. If it sells, they'll draw it.
>
I'm in it with you here. CF was... interesting, I'm not going because
I'm going to a con in may but damn.. this appeals to me greatly now.
And let's face it, so the erotica/spooge artists have to sell their
art under the table.. I'll probabl;y get flamed for this but.. That's
how it should be, especially for spooge. I like tasteful erotica and
figure studies., but who are we to argue with the powers that be.
I'm sure resoourceful artists will find a way. :)
Amy
Michael Russell (Netcom)
>
> Well, it seems that the fandom will have its first test of taking the sex
> out of furridom with the announcement of the legal hassles of the Hotel
> versus SanDiego versus CF10. (short form- no sex or nudity product at the
> con, period).
>
DUCKON and Anthrocon are big furry conventions that have little to
no sexual content in the art show or con activities. I think these
are very fun cons to attend; very relaxing and open to families.
I think CF10 will be interesting.
Hmm, there is one downside to this. Since many people won't be
spending their money on, the now non-existent, erotic artwork, that
will mean a bigger set of people competing with DeWayne and I for
the lovely fox pictures by the Carspeckens. Aggggghhhhh.
--
Cheers - Mike "Flafox" Russell # ICQ: 19110833
IBM Global Services # E-mail: mrus...@ix.netcom.com
Orlando, FL # or msru...@us.ibm.com
"The World of Vicki Fox" # Web: http://www.vickifox.com
Jake McDermott
Just a couple things to get off my chest here....and no, this is not a
troll or a flame or anything else you would care to label it.
First off, I was disappointed about going to CF10 following this news.
I have already spoke to one friend I have wanted to meet who is not
going this year because he simply could not make money because of his
subject matter. That was a bit of a downer. I was already apprehensive
at going to CF, as it's my first con...this didn't sit well with me.
But then I thought about this a bit...and I said to myself...
"Wait a second, you stupid freak. You mean to tell me you're going to
be all in a twist about going to a con without (openly aired) spooge?
What the hell does that say about YOU?"
Think about that statement, please. I did. And now I'm more psyched
than ever to go to CF. Sure, I may not meet a couple firends I wanted
to see, but such is life. I've gone for years without seeing
them...what's another year to add to it.
And hell...if the fans who came there only for the spooge are leaving
because it won't be readily available to them...then good riddance!
That's not what furry is about, anyways. A part of it, yes...but not
the whole thing.
Perhaps CF is starting to mature......perhaps, in a couple years,
we'll see a con where I can bring my kids to it. Perhaps we'll see
furry as it was a few years back...after all, the theme of the con IS
"Looking back at 10 Furry Years..."
Wouldn't that be a trip? Raise a whole new generation of furries.
That's what we've been loking for after all, right? A good face to a
fun fandom???
And, I hear talk of legal actions against the hotel. People, please
think with your heads and not your crotch, okay? The hotel has the
full right, and indeed legal obligation, to ask that CF tone down the
adult bits. They need to conform to the law just like the rest of
us...get the drift here? Regardless of the outcome, both CF and T&C
are required to fullfill their legal obligation....
Think about this, folks...you'll hopefully see that this is a good
thing, after all.
Jake McDermott
Owner, Proprietor and sole whipping boy, Skunked! Productions
http://www.skunked.com
Dar Thornton
Well thought, and well said, Jake!
Being a Southern Californian and a "furry" fan, I had my qualms about
attending CF10. I've read about and heard of the "horror stories"
concerning the con's past.
Up to last night, I felt quite reluctant to attend and volunteer, although I
do want to see what all the talk is about for myself. Now, having read the
posts in this thread, I feel more comfortable about going to the con, the
only downside being that it's on a religious holiday weekend.
If "furry fandom" is truly about art, stories, camaraderie, etc. and not
just solely about sex and spooge, then what is there to be alarmed about the
new policies?
I would view this as a golden opportunity for ConFurence to show the fandom
that it can be the best con it can be without spooge being the only glue
that holds it together, as well as prove their critics wrong in the process.
Dar Thornton, looking forward to 10 More Furry Years...
http://www.jps.net/dthorn10/
Jeff Mancebo
Dar Thornton wrote:
>
>
> If "furry fandom" is truly about art, stories, camaraderie, etc. and not
> just solely about sex and spooge, then what is there to be alarmed about the
> new policies?
>
boojum cocks his head with a smile. "Well, the dealers certainly have a
reason to be alarmed about this. I don't think they have recieved enough
notice about what is acceptable to get their inventory for the con prepared.
That is a legitimate concern."
He shrugs. "However Conventions change over the years. Hopefully this
will be for the better. I am saddened by the thought that CF has become the
sort of con that the pictures of the great masters (Leanardo, Raphel, ...) would
be forbidden to be shown in public." The brown bunny smiles wistfully. "I
always did enjoy Davinci's work."
"This does not mean that CF10 will not be a fun convetion to go to, merely
that it will less fun for some people and more fun for others."
boojum
the brown bunny
Tandy
fandom
> that it can be the best con it can be without spooge being the only glue
> that holds it together, as well as prove their critics wrong in the
process.
The problem lies not within the 'spooge is the glue'. As it is, CF has
cleaned up its act in the recent years, getting better and more friendly, by
most accounts. So it's just... perceptions. And those differ from person
to person. If you go to a large crowd and are intent on finding an idiot,
chances are that you'll find someone who you'll catagorize as an idiot.
The problem, right now, lies within the artists attending. With such
short notice, artists won't have a chance to prepare more 'clean' art for
sale. If they don't make enough money off their available clean stuff...
chances are they won't return to the con. Which means lost revenue for the
con. And less art for folks to enjoy.
Whoever did this, <sarcasm mode on> THANK YOU OH SO VERY MUCH <sarcasm
mode off>.
Graf
lonely...@newwave.net wrote in message
<7dntr5$2k5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Yeesh. Irony upon ironies. I originally intended to go to AC99, because it
>reportedly had the least porn and the best policies on art *in my
>opinion*, anyhow. But I had to cancel, because I found out the art
>policies weren't quite as firm as the information posted led me to believe.
>Now I find out CF10-- the 'con I intended to avoid like the plague -- is
the >only *completely spooge free con* in existence... And, if I recall
>correctly, cf10 is FAR too soon for me to even *think* about going.... >due
to how much advance time I have to give for my vacation, and how >long it
takes me to save up cash. Arrrgh. Ben Bruin
Nono, sexual products can still be sold. Just masked displays and
precautions taken such as bagging comics and fanzines and having customers
look at the displays behind the table. Relatively the same thing as with
Anthrocon, Further Confusion, and Conifur, masked displays, however, the
rules aren't as strict as for CF10.
--Tygger L. Graf
Brian W. Antoine
> Whoever did this, <sarcasm mode on> THANK YOU OH SO VERY MUCH <sarcasm
> mode off>.
If they felt the need to do it, at least be glad they did it BEFORE
the con started. If the hotel had legal problems with erotic material
and their license, they'd have had the same problems even if they hadn't
been warned.
What would people have done had they setup their dealers tables and
the artshow and THEN had the hotel tell them to take it all down? They
might not have stopped there, they could well have just told the con to
get out of the hotel period, and eaten the losses rather than risk their
license.
At least this way there is time to negotiate with the hotel and to try
to warn everybody attending the convention that changes are required. I
suspect the ConCom is printing up emergency flyers to hand out at the door
even as we speak, to get the word out to those who won't know about the
changes since they don't read a.f.f
--
(UniKyrn on IM, ICQ#27068798)
Brian W. Antoine briana @ iea|dogear|circuit|cet .com
http://velar.ctrl-c.liu.se/
Michael Campbell
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci wrote:
> Well, it seems that the fandom will have its first test of taking the sex
> out of furridom with the announcement of the legal hassles of the Hotel
> versus SanDiego versus CF10. (short form- no sex or nudity product at the
> con, period).
Why couldn't they have announced this a few months ago? Than i would have
made adequate plans to go!
GothTiger (tig...@execpc.com)
((Who now hides in his fireproof bunker))
Graf
Michael Campbell wrote in message <7dois5$b...@newsops.execpc.com>...
>Why couldn't they have announced this a few months ago? Than i would >have
made adequate plans to go!
>
>GothTiger (tig...@execpc.com)
>((Who now hides in his fireproof bunker))
*bangs on the bunker door*
Silly thing...because this didn't happen until last Monday the 22nd. Then
there was the time needed to gather info from the hotel, the ABC, and to get
together for an emergency meeting, and then to get word out. Considering
that yesterday I heard about it about 3:30pm and within 2 hours or so new
artshow rules were done, things are moving rather quickly. From what I can
gather, the word is spreading quickly. Which is a good thing. ^_^
*paints lots of 60's psychodelic designs and flowers on the bunker before
she leaves* ^_^
--Tygger L. Graf
Michael Campbell
Allen Kitchen wrote:
> Peter da Silva wrote:
>
> > Come on, it can't be so erotica-oriented that one G-R-rated year will sink
> > the con, or even make a dent in most artist's sales.
>
> If the con can't survive without erotica present, then perhaps
> the con needs to be re-evaluated as being the Primary convention of furry
> fandom. As I've said before; there is much more to being furry than just sex.
> This might be a good year to remind ourselves of that...
Amen! Tell it on the mountain, Brother Shockwave!
GothTiger (tig...@execpc.com)
Jeff Mancebo
Michael Campbell wrote:
boojum *giggles*. "Yup, the con should survive. If it DOESN'T survive then we
not only have to re-evaluate Confurence being the primare furry con BUT re-evaluate
Furry Fandom as a whole."
"There SHOULD be enough non-erotic interest to keep the con going. If there
isn't then SOMEONE is letting down their side of the bargain on supporting the
things they like." He grins, nose twitching. "So here's the chance. EVERYONE
who has been lobbying to see Furry Fandom cleaned up should go to Confurence as a
show of support and BUY not erotic art. It's going to be there, it's going to be
available. This particular con is moving in the direction you desire."
"So now it's up to you to vote how you want fandom to continue, not with good
reviews but with your wallets and your presence. These are the things that matter
to Dealers and Con Staff. If your unwilling or unable to pay to attend the con or
buy things at it then you are voting AGAINST cleaning up furry fandom. If you DO
pay to attend the con or buy things at it then you are voting FOR cleaning up furr
fandom."
He looks about. "So all the groups who have been trying to make it happen, this
is your chance! SUPPORT IT!"
boojum the brown bunny
Tandy
> If they felt the need to do it, at least be glad they did it BEFORE
> the con started. If the hotel had legal problems with erotic material
> and their license, they'd have had the same problems even if they hadn't
> been warned.
Point taken. However, look at it from this POV. If it was done AT the
con, everything would have been pulled... and that would have been that.
Artists would be disappointed... but it's just something to take in. Just
one of those lumps. Folks would have been too busy with the con and dealing
with the art they DID bring to focus on the problem.
Done BEFORE the con... it causes a lot of folks stress. Listen to the
rants, the screams, the accusations. Sure folks are trying to 'do something
about it'... but the uncertainty is fraying folks' nerves and getting folks
at each other's throats. And despite all the talks... this close to the
con... consider the overwhelming sense of futility some must be feeling now.
Speculation and uncertainty do more to upset folks than something just
foisted on. Psychology.
Dar Thornton
Jeff Mancebo <jman...@machone.net> wrote in message
news:36FFB8CE...@machone.net...
> boojum cocks his head with a smile. "Well, the dealers certainly have
a
> reason to be alarmed about this. I don't think they have recieved enough
> notice about what is acceptable to get their inventory for the con
prepared.
> That is a legitimate concern."
Mea culpa, boojum. I forgot to consider that aspect.
I want to add that I hope a win-win solution arises from this quickly so the
dealers will be at ease concerning this. I agree that they do have cause
for alarm as they stad to have their sales impacted.
Dar Thornton
http://www.jps.net/dthorn10/
Brian McP.
> Hello There
I figured I just say my opinion on this subject. Personally I think
this stinks!! Why? Well for one its censorship in a way and I've always
hated that. I know that the hotel's and confurence's hands are tied in this
so one really can't get mad at them. Personally I don't think it was
artists selling adult artwork at CF is what caused CF's bad repuatation,
rather how some attendees acted and displayed themselves in public which was
the main problem. Besides EVERY con I've ever been to be it furry, anime,
or general Sci-Fi (or comicbook even) has SOME adult stuff and other then
the furry cons no one at these other types of conventions complain at all
really. But this is just how I see things.
Another problems and stereotype is that people seem to think that all
adult work is spooge! My definition of spooge is the 'XXX' stuff tha you
see in the back corner of the video rental store or in Hustler. There is
plenty of adult work that does NOT fall under this catagory, such as nude or
semi-nude pin-ups or soft erotica (YES, erotica can be drawn without being
hard core, or even R rated if you want) I personally love drawing nude and
semi-nude pin-ups and soft stuff. Anyone who has seen my adult stuff knows
that 90% is made up of such stuff, and will likely stop doing any 'hard'
stuff in the future all together and just do pin-ups and soft erotica for
adult art. . This is the same stuff you all see in Playboy, Easy Rider, or
the many, MANY R rated movies you all see (and it never ceases to amaze me
how many parents allow their children to see R rated movies).
This will seriously damage my sales. Yes I am upset about that, can't
blame me for that. I put out a LOT of general audience art. In fact they
make up 67% of all my art. But the 33% of my art that is adult turns out to
be 60% of my sales. Basically that means there are a LOT of furfans out
there that do like adult stuff. Personally I feel they should be able to by
it. I sell only to adults who decide of their own free well to buy my adult
art. My adult print book is closed untill someone willingly opens it to
look (My general audience book is always open to display) I don't draw
anything illegal or extreme and I sell only to mature adults, I don't see
why I cannot do this personally. I would LOVE to see my general audience
art sell more successfully. If people bought more of it, I would push to
put out more general audience material, for I certainly don't mind drawing G
rated stuff =:) One can have cute pin-ups that are still general audience
=:)
I guess what really makes me mad about this is that some person out
there caused this to happen by calling the hotel and speading rumors. It is
truly sad that someone(s) must have such low self-esteem and self-worth and
for some reason so vengful and petty they must make life difficult for some
many others if only to give their pathetic selves a powertrip. It could
also be some sort of moral crusade too, I don't know, if it is it's a rather
pathetic one. Instead of hassling adult buying nude art from other adults
how about going after some real problems or issues of moral vaule. Usually
the ones who most radically push to place certain acceptable values on other
have the most to hide themselves. Of course this is all speculations, the
first theory in this paragraph is more likely the true one, as sad as that
may be.
Thanks you all for listening to my rambling. Some will agree with me,
some will not, and that is good for this is still a free land that people
can express their feelings and beliefs in public =:) These are all my
personal opinions and do not reflect the opinions of anyone else. If you
must respond to this, please, PLEASE, respond to me in private (or talk to
me at the con, I'm always willing to listen to a different opinion as long
as it doesn't become pointless flames =:)) do not flame this message on the
newsgroup. Thanjk you all for your time.
I may be selling some of my adult prints from my or another) hotel room
if nessecary. If so all interested adult are welcome to look, purchase, or
just to offer their opinion, I love discussion.
SEE YA,
--
****************************
Brian McPherson (BEM) =:)
silly furry artist
and furry/anime/fantasy/Sci-Fi/football fan
****************************
Kay Shapero
> Or have someone like Mark Loggins jump in, waving BF around
> when *no-one* yet has even suggested them. Thanks but no thanks,
> Randkitty.
"L>Um, actually, I was trying to head off people blaming the BFs
"L>before it started, but don't let the facts get in your way.
"L>--Random
No need to blame any group; a group generally has the courage to sign
its writings. Whoever sent the anonymous letter is just a coward; too
timid to risk letting anybody else know how they actually feel, and perhaps
also malicious enough to want to get someone else blamed for it. Malicious
certainly - the timing makes *that* plain enough.
If whoever did it is reading this, don't fool yourself about your honorable
intent; if you had any honor you would have sent your letter several months
ago, and signed your name to it.
Robert Alley
Roz Gibson wrote:
>
> And I'll still wonder about all those other hotels that served booze...
>
> Roz G.
Probably their liquor licenses only covered certain sites: the bar,
restaurant, maybe one of the banquet halls, etc. Other places in the
hotel are therefore officially "dry".
Or, this just never came up in any official capacity to them.
Arach
Jeff Mancebo <jman...@machone.net> wrote:
-snip-
> boojum *giggles*. "Yup, the con should survive. If it DOESN'T
>survive then we
>not only have to re-evaluate Confurence being the primare furry con BUT
>re-evaluate Furry Fandom as a whole."
>
> "There SHOULD be enough non-erotic interest to keep the con going. If
>there isn't then SOMEONE is letting down their side of the bargain on
>supporting the things they like."
I should HOPE that the con will do well with the new restrictions; I
for one would very much like to increase my (rather non-existant) collection
of CLEAN furry art, (I dont have a spoogie collection either, so nyah!) etc.
I personally would love to attend the con if it weren't for certain events
akin to selling my soul, etc.. ;) I'd like to be able to show my friends and
family art that is definately furry, but not something my dear ol father
would try to perform an exorcism(sp) over. ;) Take some of Tygger's stuff on
Yerf for exampe! *drewl* Simply awesome.
But, yes, if/when I do attend a con, I will more than likely be
dragging home my share of the more erotic art as well, and I'd not like to
see it outlawed or ... similar at all the cons. Let the folks judge for
themselves! Also, I see nothing wrong with the idea of the erotic art being
kept out of sight unless a person requests it specifically.. Think of your
local MiniMart.. You dont have to prove you are over eighteen to get in the
door; only if you are after some of the *ahem* 'goodies' they keep behind
the counter, eh? Yet I'm not aware of folks forbidding their younguns from
going to the corner conv. store for a snack or a soda simply because of
certain items they have and keep out of sight. Anycase, thats my thoughts on
the subject, and I wish this con the best of luck! ::::)
-Arach
FC v1.3
FG[Lycosa carolinensis]m5adm A>++ C->+ D- H+ M+ P R+ T++ W--- Z Sm-
RLCT/MA a cdlw++++ d+ e+ f+ h-- iwf+++ j+ p* sm#
brainiac -at- m1cros0ft -dawt- com
ha...@chaos.ao.net
lonely...@newwave.net writes:
>
> Yeesh. Irony upon ironies. I originally intended to go to AC99, because it
> reportedly had the least porn and the best policies on art *in my opinion*,
> anyhow. But I had to cancel, because I found out the art policies weren't
> quite as firm as the information posted led me to believe. Now I find out
> CF10-- the 'con I intended to avoid like the plague -- is the only
> *completely spooge free con* in existence...
Heh. Well, they're doing everything in their power to fix that. Good
for them, shame on the idiot (Damm good social engineering but a piss-poor
cause) who started it and last (but not least)... It'll be nice NOT seeing
you at AC99. I found '98 a very nice con... and you had to work to
get to anything non-G rated. But hey, whatever. Perhaps you'll find a
DisneyCon you can go to someday.
--Dan
Peter da Silva
Sun-stone <umno...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>Peter da Silva wrote:
>> Come on, it can't be so erotica-oriented that one G-R-rated
>> year will sink
>> the con, or even make a dent in most artist's sales.
>Yeah ... but if an artist paid lots of money to come to a con to
>sell material that they can then no longer sell ... will they
>come back?
I imagine that there will be artists with non-refundable travel arrangements
who couldn't accept a refund of their membership fees, who would be unable
to sell their material out of sight.
But I didn't say "all artists", I said "most artists".
I do not believe that "most artists" depend that heavily on erotica. I
haven't been to CF but I *have* been to SF cons that had a lot of "pink
stuff" (and it's pretty common for SF cons to have a lot of erotica), and
nowhere has it been anything like the majority.
--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
"[I]f we can make a society that's reasonably safe for women then men should be
reasonably safe from the occasional same-gender advance too." -- Anthony DeBoer
Peter da Silva
Mark Loggins <sph...@crl.com> wrote:
>Um, actually, I was trying to head off people blaming the BFs before it
>started, but don't let the facts get in your way.
Would you mind redirecting the BF speculation to the politics group? This
thread is gonna be hefty enough even without that.
Peter da Silva
Nick \"Singe\" Bousman <si...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Not to speak for anyone else, but while the majority of my art is clean, the
>majority of my sales ALWAYS turns out to come from the erotica. It would dent
>_my_ sales, that's for sure. :)
Even if nobody else has pink stuff? If it's not available anywhere that's
going to change the sales demographics equally for everyone.
Graf
Arach wrote in message <7dp35b$6nr$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>...
>I personally would love to attend the con if it weren't for certain events
>akin to selling my soul, etc.. ;) I'd like to be able to show my friends
and >family art that is definately furry, but not something my dear ol
father
>would try to perform an exorcism(sp) over. ;) Take some of Tygger's stuff
>on Yerf for exampe! *drewl* Simply awesome.
*erfs and blushes* Thankee for the kind words! ^_^
But seriously, I would have done more nonerotica if there was more demand
for it. Sure, I like doing erotica, but I'm capable of so much more.
That's one reason why I really do like being on Yerf: it's a place to put
those nonerotica pieces and keep them from gathering dust.
When I was doing images for income, tho I did have more nonerotica than
erotica, the erotica sold more. That is where the money is, and other
artists have said the same thing. It's unfortunate this happens, but what
can you do about the demand? You can say over and over again until you're
blue in the face that you have nonerotica for sale, but the truth is that
unless you happen to be a hit (ie the Carspeckens) it's hard to sell
nonerotica. I'm just very glad, and feel a bit guilty, that I'm not
affected by these rules as others are. I honestly do sympathize and do wish
all the best.
This affects not only the artists, but the dealers as well, some of whom are
not artists themselves but publish zines of adult natures. Also, this could
affect even the fans who have binders of their sexually themed art they show
around at cons and the sexually themed black sketchbooks.
*tossing in her few pennies*
--Tygger L. Graf
Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay
<7dnk63$9lk$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>...
>
>> Or have someone like Mark Loggins jump in, waving BF
around
>> when *no-one* yet has even suggested them. Thanks but no
thanks,
>> Randkitty.
>
before it
Apparently we are working towards the same end, just from
different directions.
=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=====
Victry 'love long and perspire; Vixy' Hyzenthlay
Technofox and personal Vixen. "YIP!"
Furry Fan with a Furry Lifestyle... AND a life! ;>
_____________________
/ \ _
)""""\___ |- - - - - - - - - - - -| |_\____
)----| |\-| Vivacious Vixen II |-/| | |\
)____|___|=============================| """|_)
`----' \|http://members.Xoom.com/Vixy |/"""""
"""|"""""""/"""""\"""""""|"""
Victry{nospam}@- `=++++=" "=++++=' -@{remove}juno;com
Please post any response to this newsgroup. Thanks.
SimbaLion
>course, but chances are they wouldn't have done it. Why? Because they know
>they'd get blamed for it, so why bother. I'm sure whoever did this wants to
Well this is logical but the human mind isn't, so I wouldn't judge on it,
then again, there's nothing to judge on right now, innocent until proven
guilty does apply here.
>worried about being ratted out when you've done nothing illegal? If the
cops
>come and you've not broken the law, why sweat it? Unless there are bodies
that's just natural. cops make people nervous. who can say they dont
repeatedly check their speed when being trailed by a patrol car? <:)
tho I don't think this will ruin the con unless people let it. You can get
spooge any day of the year. why spend lots of $$$ to go somewhere to spend
lots of $$$ on spooge? :)
Simba
Jeff Mancebo
SimbaLion wrote:
>
> tho I don't think this will ruin the con unless people let it. You can get
> spooge any day of the year. why spend lots of $$$ to go somewhere to spend
> lots of $$$ on spooge? :)
boojum cocks his head. "I'm not sure where your from but I know that I
certainly can NOT get lots of furry spooge all year round. Non-spoogy furry
stuff Yes. I can go down and buy non-spoogy stuff at any book store, video
store.. even Grocery Stores is carrying non-spoogy furry stuff. The
conventions are the only places I normally find it."
boojum
the brown bunny
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> Because the idiot who sent the anonymous e-mail to the hotel that set
> all this off waited until the last minute to send it when it would
> cause the most disruption. They weren't interested in having more
> people attend or in improving the fandom. They were simply trying to
> throw a wrench in the gears and time it to cause the most damage.
> I wouldn't come out in support of this if I were you since I'm sure
> there are a number of people that would like to find out who sent
> the e-mail and string them up by their genitals.
Frankly, I'm more in favor of stringing this person up between two trees by
the ankles, and selling whacks with an aluminum baseball bat for half a buck.
The person who manages to split the body in two gets half the pot.
That's how pissed I am.
--
The greatest tragedy is that the same species that achieved space flight,
a cure for polio, and the transistor, is also featured nightly on COPS.
-- Richard Chandler
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
N.T.A
My comments on this issue.
With awareness of all the erotic art dealers and artists mad (or
inFurriated, sorry bad pun) over not being able to sell their stuff outside
of their private rooms, I only have one thing to say:
Does the Star Trek, Star Wars, Bab5, Dr. Who, and other 'geek groupie'
conventions ever have this kind of problem or public outpouring? If you
hear that people are ... angry at the fandom, hotel, state, and laws of not
being able to peddle their pornographic 7of9 or nude Princess Leia pictures
would you really care about what they have to say, even if the art was drawn
by hand?
Crassus Destanion
Like I put in the CF webpage on the very front, CF is having Easter
Services.
--Crassus
Crassus Destanion
> the con started. If the hotel had legal problems with erotic material
> and their license, they'd have had the same problems even if they hadn't
> been warned.
A very well point indeed, but the letter to the hotel was made at a
strategic point when the CF staff had no time to react and solve the
problem. If the letter had been received DURING the convention, the chances
were very unlikely that anything could have been done on the hotel Staff's
part to stop it. Whoever wrote the email knew what they were doing.
--Crassus
Crassus Destanion
I
> certainly can NOT get lots of furry spooge all year round.
One word, boojum... mail-order. :)
(or is that two?)
--Crassus
Sun-stone
> I agree what the hotel is banning is not just spooge but all
> nudity.
It is a very wide net. Far too wide. Even those who want
standards would agree on that. This is what happens when we have
decisions that don't come out of proper debate channels but
instead are forced upon us through under-handed tactics.
> I like to draw classy, beautiful females that one could hang
> up in the
> room and not be ahsamed of your mother seeing it. It is well
> within
> the bounds of "classical" art and does not depict anything
> explicit.
> I could at least understand the no XXX stuff, but no nudity?
> Sheesh!...the Renaissance festival down here(Texas) allows
> nudity in
> the displayed artwork for goodness sake.
And also look at all the museums .. much of the finest artwork
of this millennium is based around the presentation of the nude
body -- female or male. It would be criminal to censor "The
Birth of Venus" or "Olympia". Sigh -- I guess Cabanel wouldn't
make it into the CF art show coz his painting shows a woman's
nipple. (Say, wonder if the guy who wrote that letter has even
*heard* of Cabanel? LOL!) I believe that nudity and even sexual
love-making can be portrayed as something beautiful and
positive. Erotica can be classy, fun, imaginative, and creative.
To lump this all together with the worst most tasteless art to
be found on the net is just so ... wrong!
Also, SF, fantasy, anime, and alternative comix art all often
contain nudity. Why should furry be held to higher standards.
What we need to recognize is context ... and it's something most
everyone is incapable of recognizing.
Thanks for your comments, Michael ... I appreciate your
positive, polite, and upbeat attitude. ^_^
Cheers;
J. J.
Kyle L. Webb
It also strikes me that whoever did it did some real research on this or
had some rather unusual knowledge. This all hinges on a rather technical
matter of the hotel's liquor license. Most places would not have been
effected by this. And very few people would have the liquor license
savvy to pick up on this.
Any bar owners or other such that have it in for CF?
Or maybe they were in touch with an existing anti-pornography group
familiar with CA law.
I wonder if anyone at the hotel would remember any specific inquiries
about this? It might lead you to your emailer.
Kyle L. Webb
hartree Fox on yiffnet
>
> --Crassus
Jim Doolittle
> It also strikes me that whoever did it did some real research on this or
> had some rather unusual knowledge. This all hinges on a rather technical
> matter of the hotel's liquor license. Most places would not have been
> effected by this. And very few people would have the liquor license
> savvy to pick up on this.
> Any bar owners or other such that have it in for CF?
> Or maybe they were in touch with an existing anti-pornography group
> familiar with CA law.
> I wonder if anyone at the hotel would remember any specific inquiries
> about this? It might lead you to your emailer.
I imagine the liquor license thing was simply coincidence. The 'lone
letterwriter' simply wanted to squick the hotel, probably into dropping CF
altogether.
-Jim
--
--------------------------------------------------------
| Jim Doolittle Fuzzy Logic E-Zine |
| gi...@betterbox.net http://fuzzylogic.betterbox.net |
--------------------------------------------------------
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
hart...@concentric.net> writes:
> It also strikes me that whoever did it did some real research on this
> or had some rather unusual knowledge. This all hinges on a
> rather technical matter of the hotel's liquor license. Most places
> would not have been effected by this. And very few people would have
> the liquor license savvy to pick up on this.
No, I think that was a "Happy" coincidence for the terrorist. they were
probably hoping for an asshole like the security chief from CF4. Resort
licenses are rare. If it hadn't been for that, they would have just snorted
at the terrorist.
Kyle L. Webb
> probably hoping for an asshole like the security chief from CF4. Resort
> licenses are rare. If it hadn't been for that, they would have just snorted
> at the terrorist.
You're probably right. Never attribute to genius what can reasonably be
explained by dumb luck.
Kyle L. Webb
Hartree Fox on yiffnet
Myrror of Clan Moonscale
you are voting AGAINST cleaning up furry fandom.
Unwilling, I can see. Unable....I don't think if someone is unable to go to
the Con, that they are voting against cleaning it up. Sorry, but some of us
can't afford to leave town, never mind the state....
Myrror of Clan Moonscale, Silver Dalake
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/3987
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Jake McDermott
I definitely know where the artists are coming from. It may seem quite
unfair, and they may be a little peeved about it. Rightly so.
But my opinion still remains that this could possibly be a good thing,
so long as we (as a fandom) don't harp on it and let things naturally
progress.
Besides, there are always room parties, yaknow.
-McD
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 14:55:16 -0600, "Tandy" <sunc...@no.spamgnt.net>
wrote:
>
>> If they felt the need to do it, at least be glad they did it BEFORE
>> the con started. If the hotel had legal problems with erotic material
>> and their license, they'd have had the same problems even if they hadn't
>> been warned.
>
Michael Pena
I agree what the hotel is banning is not just spooge but all nudity.
I like to draw classy, beautiful females that one could hang up in the
room and not be ahsamed of your mother seeing it. It is well within
the bounds of "classical" art and does not depict anything explicit.
I could at least understand the no XXX stuff, but no nudity?
Sheesh!...the Renaissance festival down here(Texas) allows nudity in
the displayed artwork for goodness sake.
This is definetly not what I expected to happen in California of all
places.
What a trip!
Michael Angel Peña(AKA Sparrow...A highly perplexed Rabbit from Texas)
Artist-Laughing Rabbit Graphics
http://lonestar.texas.net/~sparrow/sparrow.htm
ha...@chaos.ao.net
"Tandy" <sunc...@no.spamgnt.net> writes:
>
> Point taken. However, look at it from this POV. If it was done AT the
> con, everything would have been pulled... and that would have been that.
> Artists would be disappointed... but it's just something to take in. Just
> one of those lumps. Folks would have been too busy with the con and dealing
> with the art they DID bring to focus on the problem.
... except it's more likely the con would have been given the boot.
Note that the mail being sent is a good thing... NOBODY thought about the
licence problem. The hotel would have seen what was going on and PANICED.
That licence cost them and MAKES them a hell of a lot more then any
single convention ever could. If they even had to consider the choice
between it and the con, you'd find yourselves on the sidewalk BOUNCING.
--Dan
whit...@my-dejanews.com
"Crassus Destanion" <cra...@lionking.org> wrote:
> #5 FACT: The hotel does not care what the hell we do PRIVATELY. The only
> reason why they aren't allowing us to do anything publicly is the damn
I have proposed to the art show organizers that I and other concerned
individuals might volunteer to reserve private room space and donate it
toward its use as art show space for adult-oriented art.
I suggest that anyone else who is of like mind, contact the CF10 art show as
soon as possible, and volunteer likewise.
If the loophole exists, and the artshow is willing to accept this constructive
backup plan, the NC-17 part of the art show can go on as planned.
I am willing to spring for half of the cost of a room, if someone else would
like to throw in with me. I figure that renting a double-bed size room, then
shuffling the beds around(if possible) to maximize the use of the floor space,
might suit to hold half or more of the possible NC-17 art.
I volunteer to man a room for this purpose for part of the con. Volunteers
will have to be coordinated through the con staff to help staff the room.
If anyone is interested in helping me, get in touch with the art show people
to work out the details.
I will be in transit the net couple days, so don't try to contact me directly.
Please contact the art show people directly.
Terry Whittier
------------------------
People just USE their PCs,
but people LOVE their Macintoshes.
ista...@airmail.net
>you are voting AGAINST cleaning up furry fandom.
>Unwilling, I can see. Unable....I don't think if someone is unable to go to
>the Con, that they are voting against cleaning it up. Sorry, but some of us
>can't afford to leave town, never mind the state....
Quite the spectacular jump of logic, there.
If you somehow can't attend the convention, you're voting against
cleaning up furry fandom!
...uh, whatever.
Dr. Cat
: I agree what the hotel is banning is not just spooge but all nudity.
: I like to draw classy, beautiful females that one could hang up in the
: room and not be ahsamed of your mother seeing it. It is well within
: the bounds of "classical" art and does not depict anything explicit.
: I could at least understand the no XXX stuff, but no nudity?
You know, if I were coming to Confurence this year, I'd be tempted to get
some Rodin and Michaelangelo and buy a panel in the art show and display it.
Or put it up on the door of my hotel room and see if the hotel has the
guts to complain about it. :X)
If I were a furry artist and I were coming this year, I'd be tempted to
draw/paint a few quick furry versions of classics like daVinci's famous
anatomy study showing the arms in two different positions, Rodin's The
Thinker and (better still) The Kiss, and that famous thing with God about
to touch Adam's finger. And display that stuff publically. Or maybe
follow the rules and draw big rectangles over the naughty parts and write
"banned at the such-and-such hotel" in the rectangle.
Ya know, I don't think most Bugs Bunny merchandise is allowable under a
"no nudity" policy either. Except for pictures of him dressed up in drag
to flirt with Elmer Fudd, which is probably ok.
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Bugs Bunny is generally not held in nearly as high regard by
the snobs of the world as the works of famous dead painters and sculptors
from the middle ages. It remains to be seen whether any artwork from the
20th century will be held in similar esteem by the snobs of a few
centuries hence. And Rodin's done a fair amount of work that's much more
steamy and explicit than "The Kiss", but that stuff isn't as widely
known. Even The Kiss isn't as well known as The Thinker. Maybe it's a
curiosity and intriguingness thang... After all this time we still have
no CLUE what that guy is thinking about. But we all know damn well why
those two are kissing. :X)
Dr. Cat
: Note that the mail being sent is a good thing... NOBODY thought about the
: licence problem. The hotel would have seen what was going on and PANICED.
: That licence cost them and MAKES them a hell of a lot more then any
: single convention ever could. If they even had to consider the choice
: between it and the con, you'd find yourselves on the sidewalk BOUNCING.
Just like the hotels CF was at up through CF9 "saw what was going on and
paniced"? I rather suspect those other hotels had liquour licenses too.
It's the fact of someone out there complaining to them about it that
sets management on edge. They know that if somebody wants it stopped
enough to complain to them, then it's quite possible that same somebody
(or someone else like them) will want it stopped enough to complain to
the authorities if complaining to the hotel turns out not to have done
the job. So they avoid the risk of letting it escalate any further.
I'm sure I could cause headaches for the next Shriner's convention at
that hotel by complaining loudly to the hotel management about how those
people always bring a bunch of strippers and hookers into the hotel for
their get-togethers. But hey, I have better things to do with my life.
That mail was NOT a good thing. More than likely it was an act taken out
of spitefulness, in my opinion.
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Well actually I don't have anything better to do, but I
won't do that Shriner thing anyway. I'm just not like that. :X)
ba...@ursine.dyndns.org
> Also, SF, fantasy, anime, and alternative comix art all often
> contain nudity. Why should furry be held to higher standards.
I awknowledge your argument...but isn't this fandom based on people
remembering how much they liked thier childhood cartoons? Just a thot.
I agree that nude art can also be tasteful, and yeah, animals run around
nude 24/7, but you gotta remember the shock factor non-furs are going to
happen.
Maybe its for our own good?
--
Baloo Ursidae
Glen Wooten
> In article <37004E...@concentric.net>, "Kyle L. Webb" <
> > It also strikes me that whoever did it did some real research on this
> > or had some rather unusual knowledge. This all hinges on a
> > rather technical matter of the hotel's liquor license. Most places
> > would not have been effected by this. And very few people would have
> > the liquor license savvy to pick up on this.
>
> probably hoping for an asshole like the security chief from CF4. Resort
> licenses are rare. If it hadn't been for that, they would have just snorted
> at the terrorist.
Actually, the hotel was threatened with the news media & church groups.
They could care less about that. The perp got lucky on the liquor
license - he shot at one target and hit another...
--
Glen Wooten
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| primary: jag...@netcom.com | secondary: glen....@fanciful.org |
_______________________________________________________________________
| Terrie's web page: http://members.aol.com/amperprodx/littlepaw.html |
_______________________________________________________________________
ha...@chaos.ao.net
>> CF10-- the 'con I intended to avoid like the plague -- is the only
>> *completely spooge free con* in existence...
>
> Heh. Well, they're doing everything in their power to fix that. Good
> for them, shame on the idiot (Damm good social engineering but a piss-poor
... and it's fixed. Read all about it in another thread but there will
be a place for adult art to be sold, just at another hotel. Bad because
it's a decent walk from the hotel, bug it's the best that can be done on
such short notice.
Anyway, it's very similar to AAC 98 with the alternate 'adult' dealers
den, excepting the walk.
See? You should be glad you didn't go. CF is just as much the
"Den of iniquity" you always claimed it was.
But hey, feel free to start your own con.
--Dan
ha...@chaos.ao.net
Sun-stone <umno...@cc.umanitoba.ca> writes:
> Michael Pena wrote:
>
>> I agree what the hotel is banning is not just spooge but all
>> nudity.
Hotel is banning nothing. Reading comprehension tip #1
> It is a very wide net. Far too wide. Even those who want
> standards would agree on that. This is what happens when we have
> decisions that don't come out of proper debate channels but
> instead are forced upon us through under-handed tactics.
Bla bla bla. Take two. Con staff didn't tell the hotel about what was
happening. That's misrepresentation. Otherwise known as "under-handed
tactics"
(Or perhaps they did, but not well enough. I've seen a few letters from
people I believe to be con-staff that quote the hotel as saying `We
didn't know, and our hands are tied by CA laws')
Someone told the hotel the truth. Hotel then discovered they were
about 1 week away from losing a very expensive license. They reacted
amazingly well, actually. Had one of _MY_ clients defrauded me like
that and set me up for a hefty fine, (if not worse), I would show them
the door. And it probably wouldn't have reflected badly on them from
a PR standpoint, either. Try telling the media that the hotel was in
the wrong for tossing you for selling porn... that'll get you good
positive press, really.
>> I like to draw classy, beautiful females that one could hang up in
>> the room and not be ahsamed of your mother seeing it. It is well
>> within the bounds of "classical" art and does not depict anything
>> explicit. I could at least understand the no XXX stuff, but no
>> nudity? Sheesh!...the Renaissance festival down here(Texas) allows
>> nudity in the displayed artwork for goodness sake.
Different laws. And you're yelling at the wrong people. And the
people who need to be yelled at turn a deaf ear to anyone but the
oral minority.
> And also look at all the museums .. much of the finest artwork
> of this millennium is based around the presentation of the nude
> body -- female or male. It would be criminal to censor "The
> Birth of Venus" or "Olympia".
Yes, it would be. But this _IS NOT_ the hotel's decision. And
I highly doubt the CA Legislature is reading AFF. Nor was the
law written for museum quality artwork. It was written to ban
(wrongly) stripjoints. Quality erotica is simply the standard
collateral damage that comes with all bad legislation.
> Sigh -- I guess Cabanel wouldn't
> make it into the CF art show coz his painting shows a woman's
> nipple. (Say, wonder if the guy who wrote that letter has even
> *heard* of Cabanel? LOL!) I believe that nudity and even sexual
> love-making can be portrayed as something beautiful and
> positive. Erotica can be classy, fun, imaginative, and creative.
Yes, I fully agree. I disagree that most of the artwork at cons is
of that quality (erotic or non) Yes, there is incredibly done work,
but there's also a lot of quickly drawn spooge.
> To lump this all together with the worst most tasteless art to
> be found on the net is just so ... wrong!
Ahh, so now we are saying furnation has "the worst, most tasteless
art to be found on the net". QUALITY argument.
> Also, SF, fantasy, anime, and alternative comix art all often
> contain nudity. Why should furry be held to higher standards.
It's not. Generally a con does their homework and would _KNOW_
if there was a problem like this with the hotel. Had CF made sure
the hotel knew the content of what was happening, there wouldn't have
been a problem. Either there would have been advance warning,
alternate measures setup, or a new location found.
Now, I'm going to tip-toe a little here. It's quite possible that
the CF staff did indeed inform the hotel of what was going on, but
it got lost in the shuffle. So I'll reiterate: "Had CF made SURE
the hotel knew the content..." I dunno how it fell through the
cracks, perhaps they really needed a location and didn't want to
risk losing it. Perhaps they said "adult content" and the hotel
didn't realize exactly how extreme some of the 'adult content' could
be. No matter what happened, even a week warning is better then
the hotel finding out the day the con opened.
> What we need to recognize is context ... and it's something most
> everyone is incapable of recognizing.
Because you attribute too much intelligence to humans. The people
making laws are often quite incapable of differentiating between
art and porn.
--Dan
ha...@chaos.ao.net
pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> I do not believe that "most artists" depend that heavily on erotica. I
> haven't been to CF but I *have* been to SF cons that had a lot of "pink
> stuff" (and it's pretty common for SF cons to have a lot of erotica), and
> nowhere has it been anything like the majority.
I dunno, there's quite a few artists/dealers who've been bitten by this.
Not because they only sell porn, mind you, but because with such short
notice they have not have time to prepare alternate works. So they'll be
bringing less to the show. And, if the numbers from the artshows
I've heard here (Officially, even, not just from the people arguing)
it's gonna really cut down on how much they make. It's not hard to see
that no matter how much people rant about wanting to buy clean art,
very few do. It's not even any group of "Cleanup the fandom" that
give those numbers, either. I think any quick dejanews browsing
will find multiple people bitching about how a print of something
spoogy will sell for as much or more then a non-erotic original
of comparable quality.
Nobody can claim that's new, either. The anti-spooge faction has been
bemoaning that for as long as I've been in the group, and how many
times has the "So put your money where your mouth is!" argument
been raised? More often then I wish to remember.
Now, if this happens again NEXT year, with advance warning, the
tables might turn some. With longer planning, the expectations will
change. But CF has a reputation (true or not) for being a more spoogy
con. So people are coming with money to spend on erotica. And some (many?)
dealers were preparing to sell it.
Now, what happens when that changes with little to no warning?
A) the above (no time to prepare, package, ship, etc)
and B) the purchaser can't find what he wants, so saves his money till
the next time he can. I won't claim by any means that none of them will
buy anything, but you can bet that not all the intended purchase money
will get spent.
As for the majority? Hard to say. In terms of sheer numbers, I'd say no.
In terms of dollars spent? Probably at least even.
--Dan
Dar Thornton
news:7dpfg6$egb$1...@crucigera.fysh.org...
>
> Like I put in the CF webpage on the very front, CF is having Easter
> Services.
>
in accommodating furfans of faith this Easter holiday. I understand there
will be a brass section performing during the Sunday morning worship
service, which I'm looking forward to. :)
I was thinking of my immediate family's disappointment that I'll be out of
town on a day they usually come together when I made mention of that, and I
didn't intend to flame. However, I'm going to the con because I want to be
there to support my favorite dealers, see friends old and new, lend a hand
with the Art Show, and have a good time.
Fortunately, my family understands that I have an extended family of friends
in the fandom who'll also be there, that I can take care of myself, and that
it won't be the first time, nor the last, that I'll be away from home on a
holiday. And that helps me feel a lot better about going to CF10.
----------------------------
Dar Thornton
http://www.jps.net/dthorn10/
----------------------------
ha...@chaos.ao.net
Reading comprehension lesson. That's exactly what Myrror just said.
Yes, I know it's a tricky sentance to grasp... there's three negatives
in there. Scary, arn't they? Perhaps if we set higher standards in
our schools then 'Run dog run' this wouldn't be such a problem.
If you intended to respond to boojum, you probably should have quoted HIM.
Or perhaps you meant the very first sentance? There's a very slight
punctuation error in it. Try ending it with a '?' rather then a '.', and
it becomes a question he answers. As it stands, it's a musing which
is then discussed, which apparently was too hard to understand.
Just a thought.
--Dan
ha...@chaos.ao.net
c...@bga.com (Dr. Cat) writes:
> ha...@chaos.ao.net wrote:
>: Note that the mail being sent is a good thing... NOBODY thought about the
>: licence problem. The hotel would have seen what was going on and PANICED.
>: That licence cost them and MAKES them a hell of a lot more then any
>: single convention ever could. If they even had to consider the choice
>: between it and the con, you'd find yourselves on the sidewalk BOUNCING.
>
> Just like the hotels CF was at up through CF9 "saw what was going on and
> paniced"? I rather suspect those other hotels had liquour licenses too.
For their bars, not for the entire hotel. Difference is bar class
(easier to get) and resort class (MUCH harder) And that makes all the
difference.
The laws are the same across the board. No pornography where liquour is
sold. So, where at BP they couldn't hold the NC-17 section in the bar,
here they can't hold it ANYWHERE, since the entire HOTEL is considered a
bar.
> It's the fact of someone out there complaining to them about it that
> sets management on edge. They know that if somebody wants it stopped
> enough to complain to them, then it's quite possible that same somebody
> (or someone else like them) will want it stopped enough to complain to
> the authorities if complaining to the hotel turns out not to have done
> the job. So they avoid the risk of letting it escalate any further.
Nope. The hotel didn't even know there WAS an adult section until it was
mentioned. Well, that seems to be the case, anyway. I've heard that
quoted twice now from people I _BELIEVE_ to be on staff. Take my
statement with a grain of salt until someone official says it.
> I'm sure I could cause headaches for the next Shriner's convention at
> that hotel by complaining loudly to the hotel management about how those
> people always bring a bunch of strippers and hookers into the hotel for
> their get-togethers. But hey, I have better things to do with my life.
Actually, hit dejanews for convention + shriner sometime. Good discussion
on why hotels love them.
> That mail was NOT a good thing. More than likely it was an act taken out
> of spitefulness, in my opinion.
I don't doubt it was intended to be spiteful. But damm it, the letter
SHOULD have been sent by the con staff, NOT from some anonymous coward.
It needed to be sent. It wasn't until the last minute. And now there's
a serious problem. So be careful not to just use some anonymous scapegoat
to blame for all this, there's more at fault then the quick kneejerk
reaction would tell you.
<conspiracy theroy> It's really the new staff for CF11 that did it, wanting
to get everyone ready for a kinder, more family oriented con. </conspiracy>
Yea, right. :-) <-- smiley for the humor impaired.
--Dan
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> > And also look at all the museums .. much of the finest artwork of
> > this millennium is based around the presentation of the nude
> > body -- female or male. It would be criminal to censor "The Birth
> > of Venus" or "Olympia".
>
> Yes, it would be. But this _IS NOT_ the hotel's decision. And I
> highly doubt the CA Legislature is reading AFF. Nor was the law
> written for museum quality artwork. It was written to ban
> (wrongly) stripjoints. Quality erotica is simply the standard
> collateral damage that comes with all bad legislation.
Quality is irrelevant.
Museums do not have liquor licences.
Nick "Singe" Bousman
>
> SimbaLion wrote:
>
> >
> > tho I don't think this will ruin the con unless people let it. You can get
> > spooge any day of the year. why spend lots of $$$ to go somewhere to spend
> > lots of $$$ on spooge? :)
>
> boojum cocks his head. "I'm not sure where your from but I know that I
Oh of course you can. Order via mail. For instance, my site...
http://www.furnation.com/singe/
Ha. I even have an automated sort-of-working Javascript form for making an
order you can print out and send to me. :)
Now all I need is better art, so people will actually WANT to buy it. };>
But really.. a lot of furry artists you can order prints from.
-Nick "Singe" Bousman
DawnWolf
> Does the Star Trek, Star Wars, Bab5, Dr. Who, and other 'geek groupie'
>conventions ever have this kind of problem or public outpouring? If you
>hear that people are ... angry at the fandom, hotel, state, and laws of not
>being able to peddle their pornographic 7of9 or nude Princess Leia pictures
>would you really care about what they have to say, even if the art was drawn
>by hand?
No, but that's because 7of9 looks like she's going to burst a blood
vessel soon, not to mention being totally artificial (and I don't mean
the borg implants, either :), and Princess Leia is a doll that doesn't
deserve the name "female" :o)
Anyway, the issue here, as has been stated by many others, isn't not
selling spooge: It's the timing. Spooge is a major seller at the Con.
Understood about the liquor licence, aye: So, fine, no spooge directly
at the Con. If that had been put in motion sometime in November, noone
would gripe that much (or not the sentient furs, anyway). It's the
sheer malice of the timing that's so upsetting.
DawnWolf
lonely...@newwave.net
. Perhaps you'll find a
> DisneyCon you can go to someday.
>
> --Dan
>
Get your hands out of your pants, little boy. it's not nice.
lonely...@newwave.net
"N.T.A" <ka...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> <snipp>
> My comments on this issue.
>
> With awareness of all the erotic art dealers and artists mad (or
> inFurriated, sorry bad pun) over not being able to sell their stuff outside
> of their private rooms, I only have one thing to say:
> Does the Star Trek, Star Wars, Bab5, Dr. Who, and other 'geek groupie'
> conventions ever have this kind of problem or public outpouring? If you
> hear that people are ... angry at the fandom, hotel, state, and laws of not
> being able to peddle their pornographic 7of9 or nude Princess Leia pictures
> would you really care about what they have to say, even if the art was drawn
> by hand?
>
lonely...@newwave.net
> It also strikes me that whoever did it did some real research on this or
> had some rather unusual knowledge. This all hinges on a rather technical
> matter of the hotel's liquor license. Most places would not have been
> effected by this. And very few people would have the liquor license
> savvy to pick up on this.
I was just thinking of that.... so whoever wrote this email 1) had intimate
knowledge, not only of liquor laws in general, but of THAT SPECIFIC HOTEL'S
TYPE OF LICENSING.<----very important detail ! 2) Knew either by reputation
or experience about the spooge that was sold at CF. 3) Knew enough to send
his or her email soon enough to disrupt plans-- but late enough to make
changing arrangements extremely difficult. 4) Due to #3, was not merely
interested in stopping the Con or moving it, but in disrupting it in the
best/worst way possible. 5)Due to #4, most likely was motivated by a
grudge... but against the 'con, the segment of the fandom represented at CF,
or against the hotel ? (We are talking loss of revenue here.) Note: I am not
shedding a single tear for the problems x-rated artists are facing. They made
their bed, now they must sleep in it. (perhaps I should rephrase that.) But
it IS very crass to simply sabotage a 'con, and out of spite at that.... and
it does make an interesting mystery..... *dons his deerstalker cap and chews
on the stem of his bubble pipe thoughtfully. hmmmmm......*
Lemu...@hotmail.com
but ought to have been addressed long before this. If the hotel doesn't allow
a certain kind of material to be sold on its premises, then the whole con
seems to have been devised to duck the rules.
Wouldn't hotel policy on explicit material have been one of the *primary*
criteria for finding a venue for CF? Not just 'will they look the other way',
but 'will our asses be totally legally covered?' Shouldn't that have been one
of the FIRST things that was determined when CF organizers were looking for a
new place to host the con? I mean, it's obviously no surprise that the
explicit art trade at CF is a considerable one. Wouldn't it have been common
sense to endeavor to find a venue where infringing on local laws would have
not been an issue? Or did CF staff just not care that the event they were
organizing would have necessitated a whole LOT of rule-bending on the part of
their host hotel?
CF organizers aren't greenhorns at this, as I understand. I would think that
after 9 years of cons, they'd know how to best approach matters such as these
in determining that a hotel could accommodate congoers in a greater sense
than just room availibility. Good planning wouldn't have been asking the
hotel 'can we have this kind of material there'? Good planning would have
been finding out about the liquor license issue & being aware of local laws
regarding explicit material. Covering CF's ass is their responsibility, not
the hotel's. The hotel obviously has its own ass to cover.
I figure if they'd been doing their job, they'd know the hotel policies
months before & be willing to cooperate with them in the context of being in
a business relationship with the hotel, OR find another convention site. Was
there not some sort of business agreement? Was there not some sort of
contract signed saying that CF would be run in accordance with hotel policy?
To be all surprised & angry about it now seems childish to me, & the various
furry fans whining about freedom & censorship strikes me as just silly. They
ought to be whining about bad planning & irresponsibility & unprofessional
disorganization. The letter writer didn't build the house of cards, he just
poked it, ya know?
I do feel bad for the dealers who are stuck with plane tickets & lots of
unsaleable material, though. It's a shame that con staff were irresponsible
enough to give them the impression that CF's Town & Country would be a good
venue for them to sell their wares legally. I'm amazed that people are
bandying about threats of suing the letter writer, when it was ConFURence who
misrepresented itself as an event which could legally accommodate dealers
with explicit material. I'm glad I wasn't planning on being a dealer there.
I'd feel pretty damn gypped right about now. I hope dealers don't have to buy
extra plane tickets now just to have an extra person to help them run two
different dealer tables in two different buildings, paying an extra $60 for
the priviledge, to boot.
--Ezuli
http://www.skunked.com/ezuli
"Ceci n'est pas une lemur." --Not Magritte
DJ Killabunny
DJ Killabunny
(please be kind--unwind) flames not welcomed I burn easily.
Sun-stone wrote:
> Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci wrote:
>
> > I got email from Glen Wooten, associated with the art show.
> > And to
> > clairfy, there might be some accomodation to product in the
> > dealers room
> > if kept VERY secure, but apperently, that is still being
> > hashed out.
>
> After a few minutes of thinking .... I came to a new perspective
> on this.
>
> Although this seems like a setback for artists, dealers, art
> show types, etc. .. this may very well turn out to be one of the
> best things that has ever happened to anthropomorphics fandom in
> the long run.! O_O
>
> Eroticism in art and literature *does* have a place; I
> personally have seen some anthropomorphic erotic art that I
> thought was great. But the whole scene has perhaps gotten a bit
> out of hand. There is too much of it ... and too much fetish
> stuff like bondage, very nasty violent material, and ... ummm
> ... the sort of stuff Doug Winger does. I recently tried to look
> at recent uploads on a furry archive and was *very* disturbed by
> some of the material I saw. Maybe this will take the genre back
> to the sort of things that once piqued our interest in it ...
> quality art and stories. Maybe the presentation of erotic
> material will be handled more discreetly and it will be more
> tasteful -- more like a celebration of love than a display of
> degradation and exploitation that it has sometimes turned into.
> It will be integrated into stories and art rather than being the
> only thing.
>
> I don't support censorship and there is a place for well-done
> erotica, but this just might be the thing to set the balance
> right within the fandom again.
>
> Just thinking, ya know. ::shrugifies::
>
> o/~ always look on the bright side of life o/~
>
> ::Stops singing before someone strangles him:: ^_~
>
> Cheers;
> J. J.
Gary Renaud
I am NOT a CF10 staffer and can NOT say the following is definitely true. It's quite possible they DID tell the hotel, several times. At several previous Cons, the hotel "liason" would change from month-to-month, the successor wouldn't have any records, and Mark & Rod would have to start all over again. It is POSSIBLE that somewhere from liason N to liason N+1, they got too involved in re-reserving the function space and forgot to go over the legal issues again. I don't KNOW that this is the case.
"Good planning would have been finding out about the liquor license issue & being aware of local laws regarding explicit material. "
You have to know enough to ask questions. California has so damned many laws from Abortion to Zygote disposal that no one can tell. I suppose the CF folk could have hired a $200/hour lawyer to find all this out.
--
"The Tenth Commandment sends a message to socialists, to egalitarians, to people obsessed with fairness ... to everyone who believes that wealth should be redistributed. And the message is clear and concise: Go to hell." -- P. J. O'Rourke
Gary Renaud Senior Software Engineer Litronic, Inc
Direct Line: 949-622-3602
Front Desk: 949-851-1085
FAX: 949-851-8588
Paul R. Bennett
Silence, at this stage, is golden. Please read my comments. I do not know
all the details, all I am asking is to see the extension of fairness to the
folks involved. Please, patience.
In article <7dqjgs$dkk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Lemu...@hotmail.com writes:
> From what I am observing, this is an outcome that may have been unexpected
> but ought to have been addressed long before this. If the hotel doesn't allow
> a certain kind of material to be sold on its premises, then the whole con
> seems to have been devised to duck the rules.
>
> Wouldn't hotel policy on explicit material have been one of the *primary*
> criteria for finding a venue for CF? Not just 'will they look the other way',
> but 'will our asses be totally legally covered?' Shouldn't that have been one
> of the FIRST things that was determined when CF organizers were looking for a
> new place to host the con? I mean, it's obviously no surprise that the
> explicit art trade at CF is a considerable one. Wouldn't it have been common
> sense to endeavor to find a venue where infringing on local laws would have
> not been an issue? Or did CF staff just not care that the event they were
> organizing would have necessitated a whole LOT of rule-bending on the part of
> their host hotel?
In fairness, please consider all the dozens (hundreds) of details Con
organizers must try to deal with in setting up a con. So far, it appears this
was an unexpected blindside. Can we at least assume that the liquor license
situation was simply something that did not occur to anyone either at the con
staff or hotel level until the email surfaced and brought it to people's
attention. Quite honestly, we have seen several bouts down here
in G'ville Florida of a similiar situation and it never even occured to me
that such restrictions might apply if such an event should ever be held
locally. That is something I am adding to my personal planning checklist.
> CF organizers aren't greenhorns at this, as I understand. I would think that
> after 9 years of cons, they'd know how to best approach matters such as these
> in determining that a hotel could accommodate congoers in a greater sense
> than just room availibility. Good planning wouldn't have been asking the
> hotel 'can we have this kind of material there'? Good planning would have
> been finding out about the liquor license issue & being aware of local laws
> regarding explicit material. Covering CF's ass is their responsibility, not
> the hotel's. The hotel obviously has its own ass to cover.
There was a change of venue this year, a different hotel, possibly the
licensing differed. And, there may well have been staff changes as well.
Can we please, at this point, put it down not to intent, but to oversight.
> I figure if they'd been doing their job, they'd know the hotel policies
> months before & be willing to cooperate with them in the context of being in
> a business relationship with the hotel, OR find another convention site. Was
> there not some sort of business agreement? Was there not some sort of
> contract signed saying that CF would be run in accordance with hotel policy?
> To be all surprised & angry about it now seems childish to me, & the various
> furry fans whining about freedom & censorship strikes me as just silly. They
> ought to be whining about bad planning & irresponsibility & unprofessional
> disorganization. The letter writer didn't build the house of cards, he just
> poked it, ya know?
Again, please, no one can think of everything and no matter how well you
plan, something can still bite you when you least expect it.
> I do feel bad for the dealers who are stuck with plane tickets & lots of
> unsaleable material, though. It's a shame that con staff were irresponsible
> enough to give them the impression that CF's Town & Country would be a good
> venue for them to sell their wares legally. I'm amazed that people are
> bandying about threats of suing the letter writer, when it was ConFURence who
> misrepresented itself as an event which could legally accommodate dealers
> with explicit material. I'm glad I wasn't planning on being a dealer there.
> I'd feel pretty damn gypped right about now. I hope dealers don't have to buy
> extra plane tickets now just to have an extra person to help them run two
> different dealer tables in two different buildings, paying an extra $60 for
> the priviledge, to boot.
Please, until all the facts are in, can there be a suspension of judgement.
> --Ezuli
However, if you must, consider the bright side. First, it was certainly
brought to the organizers of this con the difference in licensing laws which
is something the organizers of all the other cons can learn from and include
in their planning, if they don't already. Second, bad as it seems now, if
you think about it, it could have been far, far worse. Yes, there was an
intervention that presented problems for everyone, but what could have
happened, both to the hotel and the con if it had not occured and something
had been said in the middle of the con. In the latter case, consider the hotel
facing risk of loss of a possibly important business license, the con possibly
closed, and considerable hassles for everyone, not to mention the ill well that
could have come about between the hotel and con organizers.
Right now, things are, and pleasantly surprising, rather calm between one and
all. Please, no jumping and flinging sparks. Again, please, let's all wait
until all the facts and details are in.
Paul
Who am I?
wrote:
>chr...@airwindows.com (Chris Johnson) wrote:
>
>>In article <990329003...@mauser.at.kendra.com>, mau...@kendra.com
>>(Richard Chandler - WA Resident) wrote:
>>> My understanding about how this affects Gallery so far is that I'll have to
>>> bag my books and not allow people to open them. This really fucking
>>pisses me
>>> off.
>>
>> Er. Do they become not 'on the property' if they are wrapped in brown paper?
>>
>> 'on the property' seems to suggest that you can't take the stuff into
>>the hotel at all, no matter how many envelopes you keep it in. Of course,
>>the only way to find out is to open the envelope. Is there an
>>understanding that there will be no entrapment, no plainclothes guy buying
>>an envelope, opening it, and busting the hotel?
>
>If there is a copy of Penthouse available for sale at any of the gift
>shops on the hotel grounds, how it is presented for sale sets the
>upper limit on what the CF dealers and artists have to do. Penthouse
>has in recent months begun showing explicit penetration in some of
>their pictorials, and the April issue of the magazine has an
>explicit-penetration pictorial.
>
>If there is an issue of Penthouse for sale at any of the hotel shops
>that is displayed openly, so that anyone can walk up and browse the
>magazine, then that establishes that all the dealers have to do is
>cover the erotic art. If the hotel claims that their hotel-wide liquor
>license prohibits the sale of pornography, and they try to enforce
>different compliance standards on the con than they do on their own
>shops, they stand to lose a lot more than the con does.
Interesting premise there about the Penthouse/Playboy.
OK, in all this debate and hair pulling,is no one out there an
attorney? We really need to have some reason and solid facts
on our side. Since it was lies, untruths and panic that started all
this.
Mark Freid
the traditional worst of show awards. They won't be the same without the
pr0n to make fun of. :)
Mark
Roz Gibson <nos...@huzzah.net> wrote in article
<faGL2.2378$uu1....@typhoon-sf.pbi.net>...
> In article <7dn6aq$1tj$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>, cra...@lionking.org
says...
> If someone did 'narc' the con hotel, they seriously need to get a life.
The
> only thing I'll lament is that the art show will have far less
entertainment
> value than in years past.
> And I'll still wonder about all those other hotels that served booze...
>
> Roz G.
>
>
Kyle L. Webb
>
> Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
> >
> > In article <37004E...@concentric.net>, "Kyle L. Webb" <
> > probably hoping for an asshole like the security chief from CF4. Resort
> > licenses are rare. If it hadn't been for that, they would have just snorted
> > at the terrorist.
>
> explained by dumb luck.
And in fact, I now have it on good authority that it WAS in fact dumb
luck, and that the hotel really does police itself this way with respect
to magazines and adult TV channels.
So, if you were figuring to sit in your room and watch blue movies on
cable, or buy a Playboy at the magazine rack, you're out of luck, and
will have to come out and join the rest of the con. ;)
Kyle L. Webb
Hartree Fox on yiffnet