Furries on the Daily Show

147 views
Skip to first unread message

Matthew

unread,
Oct 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/19/00
to
Be sure and catch tonight's episode, though it will probably be rerun in a
week or two. I didn't catch the whole comercial but I definitely saw a nude
picture of a vixen. The style was familiar but the artists name escapes me
at the moment.
Remember this is the Daily so you can count on them to rip it. Don't take
it personaly, it's thier job.

Matthew Kirby


ilr

unread,
Oct 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/19/00
to

Matthew <rix...@email.msn.com> wrote in message news:8snhfr$8bq$1...@raccoon.fur.com...

Doesn't bother me. They could be planning to rip on my Mom and I'd be
confident it would be a good show worth watching. Right now, coincidentally, I'm
watching an Elvyra movie on Comedy Central in fact. Some rat in a spike collar
just morphed into a dog. Oops, commercial break, something about the "Lobster
Boy". Gawd them are some freaky hands. And it would be hard to take any 'Dis'
seriously from a station famous for an Anthropomorphic little piece of shit and
some scandal about Chicken Fuckers. Some Vixen Porn would classy up the joint
IMO and wouldn't be a far stretch for them. -Ilr


Doodles

unread,
Oct 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/19/00
to
Baloo Ursidae wrote:

> Matthew <rix...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> > Be sure and catch tonight's episode, though it will probably be rerun in a
> > week or two. I didn't catch the whole comercial but I definitely saw a nude
> > picture of a vixen. The style was familiar but the artists name escapes me
> > at the moment.
>

> It'll be rerun tomarrow night at 7PM if my memory of Comedy Central's
> evening lineup serves right.

I thought I'd mention that the advertisement I just saw 20 minutes before posting
this message didn't [at the tail end of the 7PM repeat of last night's show]
mention furry at all. In fact, it looks like they plan to do a piece on
Gaylaxicon, not furry.


Highwolf

unread,
Oct 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/19/00
to
Matthew wrote:
>
> Be sure and catch tonight's episode, though it will probably be rerun in a
> week or two. I didn't catch the whole comercial but I definitely saw a nude
> picture of a vixen. The style was familiar but the artists name escapes me
> at the moment.
> Remember this is the Daily so you can count on them to rip it. Don't take
> it personaly, it's thier job.
>
> Matthew Kirby

I recorded the episode. It is segement about Gaylexicon 2000. I can't
ID the work of the top of my head.

HW

Highwolf

unread,
Oct 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/19/00
to

One was a Fernando Faria.

HW

ilr

unread,
Oct 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/19/00
to
>
> I thought I'd mention that the advertisement I just saw 20 minutes before posting
> this message didn't [at the tail end of the 7PM repeat of last night's show]
> mention furry at all. In fact, it looks like they plan to do a piece on
> Gaylaxicon, not furry.
>

That's what I thought. But atleast half the show was filled with
clips from CF11(I'm pretty that was the Hotel, the Bondage-Rack
looked too familiar). There was certainly nothing gay about the
Vixens and that Bunny color-print they showed. In fact they might
have just shown that bit to add some eye-candy for the viewers who
wanted to see something sexual besides Faggy-Grays(the aliens).
But I can't say how bad a degree we got burned because my mother
was watching the show with me, because she heard them talking about
Bush's mother in an earlier segment, so I had to quickly play "Mr. Explanation"
since she knew I actually attended that Con. So I missed most on what
they said. But I liked the pictures that they sampled =) And I'd have
to say that's the most pornography I think I've seen shown on the Daily
Show. (The reputation obsessed fan can take that anyway they want,
the blue-collar perv like me appreciates it). And I didn't really here the
word "furry" mentioned, only "Anthropomorphic". Perhaps I'll have to see
it again when it repeats tomorrow, but personally, I think that word is
just too "high brow", hard to remember, and only reinforces the "Nerdy"
aspect of SF/Fs reputation.
-Ilr

Darrel L. Exline

unread,
Oct 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/19/00
to
ilr wrote:
> > In fact, it looks like they plan to do a piece on
> > Gaylaxicon, not furry.
> >
> That's what I thought. But atleast half the show was filled with
> clips from CF11(I'm pretty that was the Hotel, the Bondage-Rack
> looked too familiar). There was certainly nothing gay about the

You are mistaken. No part of the October 19th Daily Show story on "Gay-laxicon
2000" was filmed at CF11 ...and I certainly don't recall seeing any "bondage
Rack" in CF11's Dealer's Room.

Go spread your vicious little rumors somewhere else.


I watched (and taped) the show tonight. Kevin Duane was only one attendee being
interviewed at a rather small convention for Gay Sci-Fi fans, and I think the
entire story was less than 5 minutes. Of course, where Kevin goes, so does his
"Animal Magnetism" CDROMs. I think they spent less than 30 seconds of footage
talking about his discs. Mo Rocca spent more time embarrassing the convention
organizer with stupid SciFi questions and then having fun playing dress-up for
the masquerade.


+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Darrel L. Exline "Your friendly neighborhood Polar Bear" |
| Director, "The ConFurence Group" |
| 619-223-9482 http://confurence.net dar...@home.com |
|! ConFurence 12: April 19 to April 22, 2001, Burbank Hilton !|
| Pre-registration form: http://confurence.net/pre-reg.pdf |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
"ConFurence" is a registered service mark of The ConFurence Group.

Darrel L. Exline

unread,
Oct 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/19/00
to
Furplay wrote:
> I took the segment pertaining to furry fandom (it was a story about
> "GAYlaxiCon in general). Thanks to the sheer idiocy of none other than
> Kevin Duane and his big orafice, we have to get new paper sacks to wear
> over our heads. Thanks bunches, Kevin.

Really? Was "Furry" mentioned? Do you think anyone watching the story will
remember the term "Anthropomorphic erotica" if they don't play it back a dozen
times to get it right?

Was this even a story about furry fandom? No. It was a story about a Gay
Sci-Fi convention, and it appropriately made fun of what the Daily Show likes to
make fun of. Mo Rocca was even enjoying himself by the end of the story
(getting into the masquerade and facetiously out of the closet).

> Also, I doubt any of the artworks Kevin gave TDS his permission to show
> on network television (and to be snickered at by the studio audience)
> would have been allowed if the artists had any say about it. Once again,
> thanks Kevin.

Your mouth is wide open... ready to insert foot?

Did you know that using brief samples of a work for news reporting is considered
"Fair Use" under federal law and in most states? That is not a copyright
violation, nor does it require any permission. No... I guess you didn't think
about that.

Also, there was no indication that Kevin Duane showed them those pieces. They
were edited into the story afterward and could have come from anywhere. They
*probably* came from the CD's, but who's to say that Mo didn't buy one of the
discs and use it afterwards to grab the images?


...People are so quick to jump to conclusions.

sola...@don'tmesswithtexas.net

unread,
Oct 19, 2000, 11:45:06 PM10/19/00
to
Doodles <dood...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>I thought I'd mention that the advertisement I just saw 20 minutes before posting
>this message didn't [at the tail end of the 7PM repeat of last night's show]

>mention furry at all. In fact, it looks like they plan to do a piece on
>Gaylaxicon, not furry.

Yes, but they did come across Kevin Duane in the dealers' room, along
with one other artist whom I didn't recognize, and spent about half a
minute or so talking to them about "imaginary animals having sex"...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Fool! You have just signed the universe's death warrant!"

"I did? Uh... gee, I don't know if I'm authorized to sign that..."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
solarfox@DON'TMESSWITHtexas.net (Gary Akins jr.)
http://lonestar.texas.net/~solarfox
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Highwolf

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 12:32:10 AM10/20/00
to
Matthew wrote:
>
> Be sure and catch tonight's episode, though it will probably be rerun in a
> week or two. I didn't catch the whole comercial but I definitely saw a nude
> picture of a vixen. The style was familiar but the artists name escapes me
> at the moment.
> Remember this is the Daily so you can count on them to rip it. Don't take
> it personaly, it's thier job.
>
> Matthew Kirby

I posted the "vixen" pic to Fur.erotica.

HW

Furplay

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 1:16:15 AM10/20/00
to
I've just seen the segment, hoping that the possibility of another
LOADED happening was a false alarm.

I regret to inform all that it was'nt a false alarm.........it was a
five alarm.

I took the segment pertaining to furry fandom (it was a story about
"GAYlaxiCon in general). Thanks to the sheer idiocy of none other than
Kevin Duane and his big orafice, we have to get new paper sacks to wear
over our heads. Thanks bunches, Kevin.

Also, I doubt any of the artworks Kevin gave TDS his permission to show


on network television (and to be snickered at by the studio audience)
would have been allowed if the artists had any say about it. Once again,
thanks Kevin.

Anyway, here's the file. Approx 1 minute of footage, at around 1 meg in
size, RealPlayer format:

http://www.furnation.com/furplay/furgay.rm

--
"There ought to be limits to freedom." -- GW Bush commenting about the
parody site at http://www.gwbush.com

NeuroManson

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 2:14:13 AM10/20/00
to
The other was a pict by Pelzig... Another with a singular B for a signature,
of a rabbit male pulling open his pants, topless... I was attempting
framegrabs, but couldn't do them fast enough...


"Highwolf" <v_ko...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:39EFCA...@erols.com...

DishRoom1

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 2:31:13 AM10/20/00
to
Highwolf wrote --

>Highwolf wrote:
>>
>> Matthew wrote:
>> >
>> > Be sure and catch tonight's episode, though it will probably be rerun in
>a
>> > week or two. I didn't catch the whole comercial but I definitely saw a
>nude
>> > picture of a vixen. The style was familiar but the artists name escapes
>me
>> > at the moment.
>> > Remember this is the Daily so you can count on them to rip it. Don't
>take
>> > it personaly, it's thier job.
>> >
>> > Matthew Kirby
>>

>> I recorded the episode. It is segement about Gaylexicon 2000. I can't
>> ID the work of the top of my head.
>>
>> HW
>
> One was a Fernando Faria.

I'm familar with the name "Fernando Faria". He drew a pinup for last year's
"Hit The Beach", and he has his own archive in VCL and I think he has a website
as well.
He does some good work drawing cute cheesecake furries, I got to tell you.

J. Shughart
aka Jetstone Tigre


Khromat

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to
"Darrel L. Exline" <Dar...@home.com> wrote:

> ilr wrote:
> > > In fact, it looks like they plan to do a piece on
> > > Gaylaxicon, not furry.
> > >
> > That's what I thought. But atleast half the show was filled with
> > clips from CF11(I'm pretty that was the Hotel, the Bondage-Rack
> > looked too familiar). There was certainly nothing gay about the
>
> You are mistaken. No part of the October 19th Daily Show story on
"Gay-laxicon
> 2000" was filmed at CF11 ...and I certainly don't recall seeing any
"bondage
> Rack" in CF11's Dealer's Room.
>
> Go spread your vicious little rumors somewhere else.

Before you get your pants in a twist, I think he was referring to the
dealer with all the leather toys that was a blip on the screen. It may
or may not have been the same vendor, but there *was* some dealers of
leather accoutrements at CF11, and that may be what ilr remembered. I
know, my housemate bought a nice little collar from them at the end of
the con.

Personally, I know of at *least* ten such dealers in SF/Furry/Faire
fandoms, so I didn't assume that _display rack_ of collars and floggers
was necessarily the same vendor from CF11.

Can everyone calm down now?

-- ermine
==================================
home email: KhromatAtInOrbitDotCom

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Ben_Raccoon

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to

"Darrel L. Exline" <Dar...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39EFE82D...@home.com...
<snip>

> You are mistaken. No part of the October 19th Daily Show story on
"Gay-laxicon
> 2000" was filmed at CF11 ...and I certainly don't recall seeing any
"bondage
> Rack" in CF11's Dealer's Room.
>
> Go spread your vicious little rumors somewhere else.
<snip>

I think he's referring to the small leather booth I remember being about
twenty feet from Groat's booth. Had the spiked collars and bracelets. I
think there were cuffs or something similar there, which explains the
"bondage booth" part. <:)

--


For a brief time I was here; and for a brief time I mattered. - Harlan
Ellison.

Shameless website plug. :) http://www.furnation.com/ben_raccoon/

"Darrel L. Exline" <Dar...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39EFE82D...@home.com...


> ilr wrote:
> > > In fact, it looks like they plan to do a piece on
> > > Gaylaxicon, not furry.
> > >
> > That's what I thought. But atleast half the show was filled with
> > clips from CF11(I'm pretty that was the Hotel, the Bondage-Rack
> > looked too familiar). There was certainly nothing gay about the
>
> You are mistaken. No part of the October 19th Daily Show story on
"Gay-laxicon
> 2000" was filmed at CF11 ...and I certainly don't recall seeing any
"bondage
> Rack" in CF11's Dealer's Room.
>
> Go spread your vicious little rumors somewhere else.
>
>

> I watched (and taped) the show tonight. Kevin Duane was only one attendee
being
> interviewed at a rather small convention for Gay Sci-Fi fans, and I think
the
> entire story was less than 5 minutes. Of course, where Kevin goes, so
does his
> "Animal Magnetism" CDROMs. I think they spent less than 30 seconds of
footage
> talking about his discs. Mo Rocca spent more time embarrassing the
convention
> organizer with stupid SciFi questions and then having fun playing dress-up
for
> the masquerade.
>
>

ilr

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to

> Go spread your vicious little rumors somewhere else.
>

Darrel, I consider anything that puts a creature in "Bonds" to be
a form of Bondage. It could be a twist-tie around a ferret's neck when
it's owners takes it for a walk. All I know is I saw some black leathery
stuff that obviously gets tied around people at some location. If this
was just supposed to be a hush-hush_booth at the con like that one with
all the weird dildos, then My Bad, sorry for runnin' my mouth on it.
-Ilr

ilr

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to

Kev was a little too frank on the subject, sure...
but I made an observation that one of the most sarcastic comments made
in this little segment came from one of our own artists and I quote:

Artist: "What I'm looking at is based upon a lifetime of Study, Observation, I'm
trying to make a comment about our Society and the way we live today"

Mo: "It's a guy having anal sex with a fox"

Artist: "Mmmmmnnnnhhh" *ponders begrudgingly while loooking at it again*

It's almost like they worked the 'bit' out together before taping it. ;)
All in all, if you compare our segment to their recent "El Chupacabbra" segment,
or a ton of other stuff they've covered, they didn't even lay a hand on us

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to
In article <8spu5h$dlm$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, "ilr" <i...@rof.net> writes:
> Kev was a little too frank on the subject, sure... but I made
> an observation that one of the most sarcastic comments made in this
> little segment came from one of our own artists and I quote:
>
> Artist: "What I'm looking at is based upon a lifetime of
> Study, Observation, I'm trying to make a comment about our Society and
> the way we live today"
>
> Mo: "It's a guy having anal sex with a fox"
>
> Artist: "Mmmmmnnnnhhh" *ponders begrudgingly while loooking at it
> again*

The cute thing is, they forgot to censor the drawing underneath it on the
table, which was another anal sex shot.

Can anyone identify the artist?


--
"if Marylin Manson has more of an influence on a kid than the kid's parents
do, then maybe the parents need to look at how they're raising their kids."
-- Charlie Clouser, Keyboardist, Nine Inch Nails.
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.


Doodles

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to
Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:

> In article <8spu5h$dlm$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, "ilr" <i...@rof.net> writes:
> > Kev was a little too frank on the subject, sure... but I made
> > an observation that one of the most sarcastic comments made in this
> > little segment came from one of our own artists and I quote:
> >
> > Artist: "What I'm looking at is based upon a lifetime of
> > Study, Observation, I'm trying to make a comment about our Society and
> > the way we live today"
> >
> > Mo: "It's a guy having anal sex with a fox"
> >
> > Artist: "Mmmmmnnnnhhh" *ponders begrudgingly while loooking at it
> > again*
>
> The cute thing is, they forgot to censor the drawing underneath it on the
> table, which was another anal sex shot.
>
> Can anyone identify the artist?

Do not, I repeat, DO NOT take this as gospel, but it looked like Bob Drake's
work to me. I have to do a frame scan to be sure.

Anyone else who can confirm or deny, please speak up.


Brian O'connell

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to
Actually, almost every fantasy con I've seen had someone selling
floggers, or riding crops, or cuffs, or collars, or leashes... Anyone here
ever attend DragonCon? Or BayCon? I had to wear my "Slave Trader" joke badge
just to make sure nobody dragged me off for a good whipping...;P

"Khromat" <khr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8spoqb$94b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...


> "Darrel L. Exline" <Dar...@home.com> wrote:
> > ilr wrote:
> > > > In fact, it looks like they plan to do a piece on
> > > > Gaylaxicon, not furry.
> > > >
> > > That's what I thought. But atleast half the show was filled with
> > > clips from CF11(I'm pretty that was the Hotel, the Bondage-Rack
> > > looked too familiar). There was certainly nothing gay about the
> >
> > You are mistaken. No part of the October 19th Daily Show story on
> "Gay-laxicon
> > 2000" was filmed at CF11 ...and I certainly don't recall seeing any
> "bondage
> > Rack" in CF11's Dealer's Room.
> >

> > Go spread your vicious little rumors somewhere else.
>

Furplay

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to

Baloo Ursidae wrote:
>
>
> > I took the segment pertaining to furry fandom (it was a story about
> > "GAYlaxiCon in general). Thanks to the sheer idiocy of none other than
> > Kevin Duane and his big orafice, we have to get new paper sacks to wear
> > over our heads. Thanks bunches, Kevin.
>

> And yet, you walk around with the name "Furplay."

Once again, some dickhead has to drag out that same tired old "well, if
you publish furry erotica, you then have to endorse ALL of the weird and
bizzarre lifestyles too" bullshit. Wish they'd see that it's like
accusing a gay person of being a child molester.

Furplay

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to

Brian O'connell wrote:
>
> Actually, almost every fantasy con I've seen had someone selling
> floggers, or riding crops, or cuffs, or collars, or leashes... Anyone here
> ever attend DragonCon? Or BayCon? I had to wear my "Slave Trader" joke badge
> just to make sure nobody dragged me off for a good whipping...;P
>


It sort of reminds me of the way the Gor freaks have infiltrated into
various RenFaires & the like (which makes the "lifestylers ruining furry
fandom" thing seem pale in comparison, when you think about it).

Rust

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to
Furplay wrote:

>
> Baloo Ursidae wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I took the segment pertaining to furry fandom (it was a story about
> > > "GAYlaxiCon in general). Thanks to the sheer idiocy of none other than
> > > Kevin Duane and his big orafice, we have to get new paper sacks to wear
> > > over our heads. Thanks bunches, Kevin.
> >
> > And yet, you walk around with the name "Furplay."
>
> Once again, some dickhead has to drag out that same tired old "well, if
> you publish furry erotica, you then have to endorse ALL of the weird and
> bizzarre lifestyles too" bullshit. Wish they'd see that it's like
> accusing a gay person of being a child molester.

Pipe down a notch. First off, wouldn't that be more like accusing a gay
person of being a drag queen? Secondly, don't be so quick with the
paper bag. When's the last time you had a lynch mob on your front
porch?

-Rust
--
We are the instruments of creation - what we dream, is.

Remove ".netspam" from my address to reply

sola...@don'tmesswithtexas.net

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to
Baloo Ursidae <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote:

>> Yes, but they did come across Kevin Duane in the dealers' room, along
>> with one other artist whom I didn't recognize, and spent about half a
>> minute or so talking to them about "imaginary animals having sex"...
>

>Kevin Duane was the black artist? Considering how that played out, I'd
>have to say that scene was probably arranged by the Daily Show to play out
>the way it did. Either that or Mr. Duane was reading way more into his
>art than most people would consider possible.

No, Kevin was the (white) guy hawking CD's. I don't know who the other
fellow was...

Doodles

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to
Doodles wrote:

Okay, a frame-by-frame scan knocks Bob Drake out of the competition. I've now
been told by some folks that it's James Pearson but like I said earlier:

> Anyone else who can confirm or deny, please speak up.

---------

Meanwhile, I spent a good 20 minutes laughing my ass off at their blooper. Oh,
I think that we, as concerned, moral individuals, should send in e-mails asking
how they could expose kiddies to such things. [For those of you who have not a
clue, I'M JOKING!] =};-3


Chuck Melville

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to

solarfox@DON'TMESSWITHtexas.net wrote:

> Doodles <dood...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >I thought I'd mention that the advertisement I just saw 20 minutes before posting
> >this message didn't [at the tail end of the 7PM repeat of last night's show]
> >mention furry at all. In fact, it looks like they plan to do a piece on
> >Gaylaxicon, not furry.
>
> Yes, but they did come across Kevin Duane in the dealers' room, along
> with one other artist whom I didn't recognize, and spent about half a
> minute or so talking to them about "imaginary animals having sex"...
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

What!? You mean, not only are the animals and furries having sex, but so are the
imaginary animals!? Is nothing sacred!!

...do you suppose they were having imaginary sex...?


William Earl Haskell

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to
DishRoom1 wrote:

> Highwolf wrote --


>
> >
> >
> > One was a Fernando Faria.
>
> I'm familar with the name "Fernando Faria". He drew a pinup for last year's
> "Hit The Beach", and he has his own archive in VCL and I think he has a website
> as well.
> He does some good work drawing cute cheesecake furries, I got to tell you.

He does inded. I've looked at his work in VCL and rather like seeing the *variety*
in style and subject. He lives in Brazil somewhere, I think. I haven't seen his
website, if such there be.


ilr

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to
> That's not what I'm saying, its just that I don't see you having a lot of
> room to speak about what is acceptable to other people when your name is a
> rather bad sexually loaded pun.
>

Who has room to speak about what's acceptable to other people in the first place?

And the whole paper-sack thing; I mean what do you expect? Trumpets,
Seraphim, and an Angelic Choir announcing the wonderfulness that is furry?
If anyone thinks this was "bad exposure" then they deserve such a reality
check.
-Ilr

Furplay

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to
Well, you've just admitted that was the implication.

Baloo Ursidae wrote:


>
> Furplay <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote:
>
> > Once again, some dickhead has to drag out that same tired old "well, if
> > you publish furry erotica, you then have to endorse ALL of the weird and
> > bizzarre lifestyles too" bullshit. Wish they'd see that it's like
> > accusing a gay person of being a child molester.
>

> That's not what I'm saying, its just that I don't see you having a lot of
> room to speak about what is acceptable to other people when your name is a
> rather bad sexually loaded pun.
>

> --
> Baloo

Furplay

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to

ilr wrote:
>
> If anyone thinks this was "bad exposure" then they deserve such a reality
> check.
> -Ilr

I guess the sound on your TV is shot, because you did'nt pick up the
snickering and laughter from the studio audience as the various pieces
of artwork were displayed acrosss the screen (especially the "a guy
having anal sex..........with a FOX." one).

One can only imagine how many viewers at home were snickering as well.

Furplay

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to

ilr wrote:
>
> If anyone thinks this was "bad exposure" then they deserve such a reality
> check.
> -Ilr

I guess the sound on your TV is shot, because you did'nt pick up the
snickering and laughter from the studio audience as the various pieces
of artwork were displayed acrosss the screen (especially the "a guy
having anal sex..........with a FOX." one).

One can only imagine how many viewers at home were snickering as well.

Yes, it's time to distribute the paper bags around the genre once again.
In your case however, I'd recommend plastic.

Brian O'connell

unread,
Oct 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/20/00
to
THIS is why I said to give up on the idea of acceptance... Simply put:
You are a fan of something not generally accepted in the mainstream, ie:
sports of contemporary fandom (ie: movies/music/media)... You are a fan of
cartoon animals, something that most normal people have gotten over and past
when they reached 10-12 years of goddamnned age... In other words, if you
like Bugs Bunny in drag after the general effect wears off, in other words,
become OBSESSED with Bugs Bunny, you are a mentally deranged freak, plain
and simple... Same as every *other* form of fandom... The moment you take a
hobby more seriously than real life, you are a complete and utter freak,
plain and simple...

Simply put as well, enjoy what you will... If you (a) have to justify
it, or (b) deny it, then there's obviously something wrong with you... I've
stated this dozens of times... Honestly, can ANYONE here state that, for
instance, that when Disney did hiring on "The Lion King", that they asked
each animator/artist who worked on it, "Are you a furry?", or "Do you know
what you're doing?"... And can anyone honestly state that they were denied
work for saying "Yes"?, or that, for that matter, they did it because they
were doing a *JOB* for Disney? If you answered to anything but the last
question, then you are a deluded furry, plain and simple...


"Ebony Leopard" <tamar_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8sr9ov$h3m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <39EFEAC5...@home.com>,


> "Darrel L. Exline" <Dar...@home.com> wrote:

> > Furplay wrote:
> > > I took the segment pertaining to furry fandom (it was a story about
> > > "GAYlaxiCon in general). Thanks to the sheer idiocy of none other
> than
> > > Kevin Duane and his big orafice, we have to get new paper sacks to
> wear
> > > over our heads. Thanks bunches, Kevin.
> >

> > Really? Was "Furry" mentioned? Do you think anyone watching the
> story will
> > remember the term "Anthropomorphic erotica" if they don't play it
> back a dozen
> > times to get it right?
>

> Yeah, too bad the term Anthropomorphic was the term being used to try
> to make the comic medium of human like animals legit.


>
> > Was this even a story about furry fandom? No. It was a story about
> a Gay
> > Sci-Fi convention, and it appropriately made fun of what the Daily
> Show likes to
> > make fun of. Mo Rocca was even enjoying himself by the end of the
> story
> > (getting into the masquerade and facetiously out of the closet).
>

> Yeah, and now when ever anyone who saw the show sees or hear's the term
> anthropomophic they're going to related it to gay sci-fi and erotica.
> Kinda hard to push anthro art and comics to the mainstream when now
> it's being associated with nerdy erotic art (skip the association with
> gay sci-fi, ), but just the fact that the term and artform is being
> shown in a "newesque" story done to "dis" what it was reporting in the
> first place, I can't say that's exactly a positive step forward for
> mainstream acceptance.


>
> > > Also, I doubt any of the artworks Kevin gave TDS his permission to
> show
> > > on network television (and to be snickered at by the studio
> audience)
> > > would have been allowed if the artists had any say about it. Once
> again,
> > > thanks Kevin.
> >

> > Your mouth is wide open... ready to insert foot?
> >
> > Did you know that using brief samples of a work for news reporting is
> considered
> > "Fair Use" under federal law and in most states? That is not a
> copyright
> > violation, nor does it require any permission. No... I guess you
> didn't think
> > about that.
> >
> > Also, there was no indication that Kevin Duane showed them those
> pieces. They
> > were edited into the story afterward and could have come from
> anywhere. They
> > *probably* came from the CD's, but who's to say that Mo didn't buy
> one of the
> > discs and use it afterwards to grab the images?
> >
> > ...People are so quick to jump to conclusions.
>

> Yeah, but this guy holds a rep of doing more things that aren't
> considered exactly on the up and up. Which, I suppose, is one reason
> why he'd end up in a gay sci-fi convention rather than an anthro
> convention, which he seems to have been barred from for one reason or
> another.
>
> Personally though, I laughed my butt off (for some reason when they
> showed the furry pics, my screen started to vibrate.). And then I
> thought, that can't possibly be good for business as far as getting a
> more wider viewer base. Shrugs.
>
> And for the record that guy showing the artwork was not Max the
> Blackrabbit, Ken Sample, Oscar Marcus, Albert Temple, Robert Newell, or
> myself so don't ask use about it when you all see us at cons. Though,
> that guy did seem to have some skills.
>
> --
> Ebony Leopard (We don't look alike.)
> http://www.geocities.com/xenif/extinctioners.html
> http://www.yerf.com/howashaw
> http://www.redpanda.com/howart

Ebony Leopard

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 1:32:14 AM10/21/00
to
In article <39EFEAC5...@home.com>,
"Darrel L. Exline" <Dar...@home.com> wrote:
> Furplay wrote:
> > I took the segment pertaining to furry fandom (it was a story about
> > "GAYlaxiCon in general). Thanks to the sheer idiocy of none other
than
> > Kevin Duane and his big orafice, we have to get new paper sacks to
wear
> > over our heads. Thanks bunches, Kevin.
>
> Really? Was "Furry" mentioned? Do you think anyone watching the
story will
> remember the term "Anthropomorphic erotica" if they don't play it
back a dozen
> times to get it right?

Yeah, too bad the term Anthropomorphic was the term being used to try
to make the comic medium of human like animals legit.

> Was this even a story about furry fandom? No. It was a story about
a Gay
> Sci-Fi convention, and it appropriately made fun of what the Daily
Show likes to
> make fun of. Mo Rocca was even enjoying himself by the end of the
story
> (getting into the masquerade and facetiously out of the closet).

Yeah, and now when ever anyone who saw the show sees or hear's the term
anthropomophic they're going to related it to gay sci-fi and erotica.
Kinda hard to push anthro art and comics to the mainstream when now
it's being associated with nerdy erotic art (skip the association with
gay sci-fi, ), but just the fact that the term and artform is being
shown in a "newesque" story done to "dis" what it was reporting in the
first place, I can't say that's exactly a positive step forward for
mainstream acceptance.

> > Also, I doubt any of the artworks Kevin gave TDS his permission to


show
> > on network television (and to be snickered at by the studio
audience)
> > would have been allowed if the artists had any say about it. Once
again,
> > thanks Kevin.
>

Ebony Leopard

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 1:34:44 AM10/21/00
to
In article <8spu5h$dlm$1...@raccoon.fur.com>,

"ilr" <i...@rof.net> wrote:
>
> Kev was a little too frank on the subject, sure...
> but I made an observation that one of the most sarcastic comments made
> in this little segment came from one of our own artists and I quote:
>
> Artist: "What I'm looking at is based upon a lifetime of Study,
Observation, I'm
> trying to make a comment about our Society and the way we live today"
>
> Mo: "It's a guy having anal sex with a fox"
>
> Artist: "Mmmmmnnnnhhh" *ponders begrudgingly while loooking at it
again*
>
> It's almost like they worked the 'bit' out together before taping
it. ;)
> All in all, if you compare our segment to their recent "El
Chupacabbra" segment,
> or a ton of other stuff they've covered, they didn't even lay a hand
on us
>
>

True, it's probably much to do about nothing. Heh, ranks up there with
MTV's DownTown episode on comic cons, with the little furry booth in
the background.

--
Ebony Leopard

Austin Dern

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
Ebony Leopard <tamar_...@my-deja.com> writes:

>True, it's probably much to do about nothing. Heh, ranks up there with
>MTV's DownTown episode on comic cons, with the little furry booth in
>the background.

Oh, I dunno... why, just last week when I went to the supermarket
easily five, ten guys mentioned how they found nothing odd or silly in
drawing pictures of anal sex with a fox, but yesterday, I was just in
to get some soda and pizza rolls, and I must've heard over two dozen
people say in unison, "Thanks to The Daily Show's 'look at the freaks'
segment last night, I find myself fascinated by the complex and
long-running bitter political feuds that've been rampaging in the
so-called furry community and would gladly support an international
pogrom against all of them." The tides are definitely changing, my
friend.

Austin Dern
muck.spindizzy.org 7072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ebony Leopard

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
In article <8srcv2$uff$1...@velox.critter.net>,
"Brian O'connell" <furball1_(furball-one)_hates_s...@uswest.net>
wrote:
--

Give up? I don't think so. Hobby, well considering the volume of
internationally distributed comics I'm producing I'd say that it sorta
falls beyond the relm of hobby. Being excepted by the mainstream as a
goal? Why the heck not? Saki did it, Wagner (thought he blew it) did
it. Hey, we're in a business here, not simply producing pin up
drawings for commissioners here. To continue business you have to
reach a broader base, otherwise why bother doing it.

Besides, I've never been a quiter and I fight for what I believe in. I
feel that producing high quality comics with good art and good story
writing will indeed gain a wider range of exceptance with mainstream
reader. Why else do comics like Tellos, which has a 80% morph cast,
and Sonic the Hedgehog are so popular? And do I want a piece of that
pie, do I want to know that quality anthro work can be just as
legitamate as any superhero, sci fi comic. You better believe I do.
If people lived with he attitude of, oh well, there's nothing I can do
to change things so I just mind as well except it and move on, then I w
ouldn't be able to vote in a couple of weeks.

To be so quick to give up and lie down cause the challege ahead is a
big one.
Ebony Leopard

Kathmandu

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to

"Furplay" <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote in message
news:39F121DF...@radiks.net...

>
>
> ilr wrote:
> >
> > If anyone thinks this was "bad exposure" then they deserve such a reality
> > check.
> > -Ilr
>
> I guess the sound on your TV is shot, because you didn't pick up the
> snickering and laughter from the studio audience as the various pieces
> of artwork were displayed across the screen (especially the "a guy

> having anal sex..........with a FOX." one).
>

If you had been at my house when this was playing you would have heard me
laughing too. It wasn't the images as much as it was the setup. The artist
giving an intellectual interpretation of his artwork and then the guy going
"It's a guy having anal sex..........with a FOX." Classic humor setup. Also
keep in mind that although many are shocked and/or repulsed by the images,
perhaps an equal or greater number are going, "wow".


> One can only imagine how many viewers at home were snickering as well.

Probably most of them. It was a funny bit, get over it.

I have to agree with Ebony Leopard on the connotations about the art being shown
in a segment of a Gay Sci-Fi con, but then isn't a large portion of the artwork
gay orientated and furry is an offshoot of sci-fi so what can you say? Calling a
horse a horse is not a bad thing. It does, however make it a pain in the ass for
those who are straight and try to promote furry beyond the fandom. The people
who should bare full responsibility for any damage done to the fandom are the
con staff. Anyone who let's in a reporter into a con like this to put it's
attendee's out to flap in the breeze like this should be held accountable. Here
is a tip: if you hold a gay sci-fi convention or even a furry con and a reporter
shows up, they are not there to make you and your attendee's look good. It
hasn't happened yet anyway. If someone shows up filming a documentary, same
thing, they are not there to make friends, especially if there is even the
slightest hint of "bizarre sex" involved.

Kathmandu

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to

"Austin Dern" <aus...@spindizzy.org> wrote in message
news:8srfq4$1g...@cortez.sss.rpi.edu...

> Ebony Leopard <tamar_...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> >True, it's probably much to do about nothing. Heh, ranks up there with
> >MTV's DownTown episode on comic cons, with the little furry booth in
> >the background.
>
> Oh, I dunno... why, just last week when I went to the supermarket
> easily five, ten guys mentioned how they found nothing odd or silly in
> drawing pictures of anal sex with a fox, but yesterday, I was just in
> to get some soda and pizza rolls, and I must've heard over two dozen
> people say in unison, "Thanks to The Daily Show's 'look at the freaks'
> segment last night, I find myself fascinated by the complex and
> long-running bitter political feuds that've been rampaging in the
> so-called furry community and would gladly support an international
> pogrom against all of them." The tides are definitely changing, my
> friend.

Hahahahahahahah! And LOL!

Steve Carter

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to

"Ceredwyn 'Silverblue' Ealanta" <cere...@pangaean.net> wrote in message:
> All I can say is that the man who wrote the Gor books *also* wrote a
> book on how to improve your marriage. It's as frightening as it seems.

Even worse, there's a contingent out there that actually lends credence to
that "women are property, women love to be property" ideology. The
disturbing things is that from what I've seen, it runs about 60/40 men to
women ratio.

Chuck Melville

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to

Ebony Leopard wrote:

> In article <39EFEAC5...@home.com>,
> "Darrel L. Exline" <Dar...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > Really? Was "Furry" mentioned? Do you think anyone watching the
> story will
> > remember the term "Anthropomorphic erotica" if they don't play it
> back a dozen
> > times to get it right?
>
> Yeah, too bad the term Anthropomorphic was the term being used to try
> to make the comic medium of human like animals legit.
>

You mean Anthropmorphic material -isn't- legitimate?

I suspect you mean the sexier or spoogier furry material in this
instance.
I guess there's no winning on that point. I'd mostly -stopped-
referring to anthropomorphic art as "Furry" for -precisely- that reason,
preferring the more established term of Anthropomorphics, or even the
traditional "Funny Animals". I guess Kevin had the same idea,
unfortunately.


Chuck Melville

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to

Brian O'connell wrote:

> Honestly, can ANYONE here state that, for
> instance, that when Disney did hiring on "The Lion King", that they asked
> each animator/artist who worked on it, "Are you a furry?", or "Do you know
> what you're doing?"... And can anyone honestly state that they were denied
> work for saying "Yes"?, or that, for that matter, they did it because they
> were doing a *JOB* for Disney? If you answered to anything but the last
> question, then you are a deluded furry, plain and simple...

First off, I rather doubt that any studio would come out and -ask-
something like that directly, in order to avoid even the most remote
possibility of later charges of prejudice.

And didn't Teresa Warner post here within the past couple of months that
she -has- seen this sort of selective screening and attitude present among some
animation studios?


Rust

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
Mathue wrote:
>
> In article <8sr9ov$h3m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ebony Leopard

> <tamar_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > but just the fact that the term and artform is being
> > shown in a "newesque" story done to "dis" what it was reporting in the
> > first place, I can't say that's exactly a positive step forward for
> > mainstream acceptance.
>
> I can't say it does anything, it isn't a news show at all :D Could
> we all just forget these little TV shows and web only publications that
> have no influence whatsoever? Didn't anyone read Chuck's post about
> 'Portal of Evil and Furry Fandom' Geeze, lets get our undies in a bunch
> _only_ over genuine media.

Agreed. It isn't about what's being portrayed, it's about how it's
being ortrayed. I have an article on Mp3 somewhere around my HD which
was done by a more reputable show. It treats furries as loveable
eccentrics, going so far as to indirectly imply a similarity to Muppets
(by launching into a chorus of Manah Manah at the end).

Sensationalists will find scandal wherever they look for it.

ilr

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
> I guess the sound on your TV is shot, because you did'nt pick up the
> snickering and laughter from the studio audience as the various pieces
> of artwork were displayed acrosss the screen (especially the "a guy

> having anal sex..........with a FOX." one).
>
Just like whatever television you recorded that .RM file off of. ;)

And conversely, when they showed that artist holding up that drawing, people
started whistling and "Whhoooo!"ing before Mo' said a damn thing.
Go ahead, give it another 'listenin and see what I mean.

> One can only imagine how many viewers at home were snickering as well.
>

Well, now. That IS a discouraging thought. We're pouring our hearts and
souls into this "Anthropomorphic Erotica" and people are out there JUST
snickering at it. ...Because I HAD A COUPLE OF GUT-LAUGHS! But I
guess we're just not as sexually scandalous and funny as "Bubba, Gap-Gurl,
and 'the Cuban'" :(
-Ilr

Brian O'connell

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
All I was saying, is that whoever is hired by an animation studio, is
primarily hired on the basis of their skills and/or talent... Additionally,
as with any job, they were probably also hired on their abilities to work
within a group, and social skills in general...

I inquired many times as to what material was presented in the
miscellaneous artists' portfolios, what subject matter, etc, and recieved
outright silence as a response... I believe that is the problem as well,
there's all likelihood that the artists in question provided a limited scope
of artwork that essentially screamed "I'm a furry!"... In other cases, it
could have been due to the specific art style of many of the artists who
were applying for a job...

Frankly, I'm sick of the constant complaining, it's always
counterproductive, and it results in only more externalized self loathing,
rather than anyone realizing that they can either (a) remain a furry and
tolerate whatever baggage comes with it, or (b) start munching doritos in
their lazyboy, watching nothing but football, because that, essentially, is
the ONLY form of mainstream acceptable fandom they will be able to find,
which doesn't have a freak label attached to it...

"Chuck Melville" <cp...@zipcon.com> wrote in message
news:39F1AF38...@zipcon.com...

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
In article <39F1AF6D...@pangaean.net>, Ceredwyn 'Silverblue' Ealanta <

cere...@pangaean.net> writes:
> All I can say is that the man who wrote the Gor books *also* wrote a
> book on how to improve your marriage. It's as frightening as it seems.
>
> At the Devilbunnies AusGathering, we were reading it out to each other
> to see who could say the most without cracking up laughing.

Hee, using a John Norman book like Eye of Argon, eh? Sounds good.
"Imaginitive sex" was the book's title, IIRC. Funny to think of a guy who
actually has no personal interest in BDSM writing a book giving couples
scenarios in which to tie one another up.


--
"if Marylin Manson has more of an influence on a kid than the kid's parents
do, then maybe the parents need to look at how they're raising their kids."
-- Charlie Clouser, Keyboardist, Nine Inch Nails.
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.


Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
In article <8sr9ov$h3m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ebony Leopard <tamar_prower@my-

deja.com> writes:
> And for the record that guy showing the artwork was not Max
> the Blackrabbit, Ken Sample, Oscar Marcus, Albert Temple, Robert
> Newell, or myself so don't ask use about it when you all see us at
> cons. Though, that guy did seem to have some skills.

It took me a while to recognize the style, and I asked someone else for
confirmation, but it appears to have been CK Penchant.

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
In article <211020000925085320%mathu/e...@my-deja.com>, Mathue <mathu/e@my-

deja.com> writes:
> Geeze, lets get our undies in a bunch _only_ over genuine media.

You're Right! The National Enquirer could do a year-long series slamming
furries and it wouldn't matter. It doesn't matter until we finally get Dissed
in the New York Times.

That was sarcasm, by the way. We have been dissed in real media. KARE-11 in
Minneapolis, for example.

But it does re-enforce the message that has come out time and time again.
Never co-operate with the Media. They are not there to do you any favors.
They may pretend they're going to be nice. You may think you can out-smart
them, but they've been manipulating people like you for years, professionally,
and know every trick in the book.

Just don't.

Bob Drake

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:58:19 -0700, Doodles <dood...@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>Do not, I repeat, DO NOT take this as gospel, but it looked like Bob Drake's
>work to me. I have to do a frame scan to be sure.

I haven't seen the video and won't bother to download it but as far as
I can tell you are talking about some con I've never been to nor heard
of, and I've never given any art to Kevin Duane (though he did ask me
a while ago) so not that it matters but it probably isn't mine.

BD


part...@email.com

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
In article <39EFD51F...@radiks.net>,
mhi...@ALL.SPAMMERS.WILL.DIE.radiks.net wrote:
> I've just seen the segment, hoping that the possibility of another
> LOADED happening was a false alarm.
>
> I regret to inform all that it was'nt a false alarm.........it was a
> five alarm.
>

I saw the segment and thought it was great. THE DAILY SHOW is one of
my favorites and they have made fun of just about everything.

Let's keep our sense of humor folks, we are talking about furries after
all. THis is the same program that has made light of riots, execution
and everyone in politics. We are in pretty good company!

Steve C.

Chuck Melville

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to

Brian O'connell wrote:

> All I was saying, is that whoever is hired by an animation studio, is
> primarily hired on the basis of their skills and/or talent... Additionally,
> as with any job, they were probably also hired on their abilities to work
> within a group, and social skills in general...
>
> I inquired many times as to what material was presented in the
> miscellaneous artists' portfolios, what subject matter, etc, and recieved
> outright silence as a response... I believe that is the problem as well,
> there's all likelihood that the artists in question provided a limited scope
> of artwork that essentially screamed "I'm a furry!"... In other cases, it
> could have been due to the specific art style of many of the artists who
> were applying for a job...
>
> Frankly, I'm sick of the constant complaining, it's always
> counterproductive, and it results in only more externalized self loathing,
> rather than anyone realizing that they can either (a) remain a furry and
> tolerate whatever baggage comes with it, or (b) start munching doritos in
> their lazyboy, watching nothing but football, because that, essentially, is
> the ONLY form of mainstream acceptable fandom they will be able to find,
> which doesn't have a freak label attached to it...
>

I choose neither, as I find both selections to be unsatisfactory.

I choose to be a cartoonist, and I choose to not accept any detrimental
baggage that clings to anthropomorphic art. I don't see how complaining is
counter-productive since it's the squeeky wheel that gets the grease. Many of
the changes that -have- occured in Furry Fandom over the past few years began
here, with observations, complaints, arguments, and eventually people becoming
informed and getting fed up and going out and making changes. Look at
Confurence. Look at the general atmosphere of most furry cons, and the overall
directions of those cons; how they handle the Dealer's Rooms, and the Art
Shows.

Not all of the changes have been palatable or widely acceptable (ie, the
Burned Furs), but if nothing else they -do- reflect that change was seen as
being needed and that a large number of people were in favor of it, even if not
all were in agreement on -how- changes should be best attained.

I don't accept that Furry Fandom should have to be accepted as a freak
show. I don't accept that we should have to accept it being portrayed as such
everytime a feature or article about it is produced. And I don't accept that
we should accept material or attitudes that contribute to the perception of the
Fandom as a freak show.

Furplay

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
You know? Why do I get this eeeeeerie feeling that out of nowhere this
"Mystery Artist" is:

(a) gonna show up at ConiFur
(b) bring his "a guy having anal sex..........with a fox" pic
(c) going to break sales records for it at the art auction

Darrel L. Exline

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
ilr wrote:
>
> > Go spread your vicious little rumors somewhere else.
> >
>
> Darrel, I consider anything that puts a creature in "Bonds" to be
> a form of Bondage. It could be a twist-tie around a ferret's neck when
> it's owners takes it for a walk. All I know is I saw some black leathery
> stuff that obviously gets tied around people at some location. If this
> was just supposed to be a hush-hush_booth at the con like that one with
> all the weird dildos, then My Bad, sorry for runnin' my mouth on it.
> -Ilr

What irked me was that you said that some of the footage for the TDS story was
from CF11, when I speciifcally told the Daily Show (in not so kinds words) to
take a flying leap when they asked about showing up at CF11.

I do apologize, though... of the 102 Dealer's tables at ConFurence 11, I didn't
remember that there was a guy in the back corner who had some leather-stuffs...
but he was sharing space from another Dealer's booth and I can't remember for
sure who that was (and don't want to name who I *think* that was in case I
remember it wrong).

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Darrel L. Exline "Your friendly neighborhood Polar Bear" |
| Director, "The ConFurence Group" |
| 619-223-9482 http://confurence.net dar...@home.com |
|! ConFurence 12: April 19 to April 22, 2001, Burbank Hilton !|
| Pre-registration form: http://confurence.net/pre-reg.pdf |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
"ConFurence" is a registered service mark of The ConFurence Group.

Darrel L. Exline

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
Ebony Leopard wrote:
> "Darrel L. Exline" <Dar...@home.com> wrote:
> > Furplay wrote:
> > > I took the segment pertaining to furry fandom (it was a story about
> > > "GAYlaxiCon in general). Thanks to the sheer idiocy of none other than
> > > Kevin Duane and his big orafice, we have to get new paper sacks to wear
> > > over our heads. Thanks bunches, Kevin.
> >
> > Really? Was "Furry" mentioned? Do you think anyone watching the story will
> > remember the term "Anthropomorphic erotica" if they don't play it back a dozen
> > times to get it right?
>
> Yeah, and now when ever anyone who saw the show sees or hear's the term
> anthropomophic they're going to related it to gay sci-fi and erotica.
> Kinda hard to push anthro art and comics to the mainstream when now
> it's being associated with nerdy erotic art (skip the association with

Like I said... unless people who don't already know the term "anthropomorphic"
recorded that show and choose to play it back several times, they are *not*
going to remember that term. If Kevin had used "Furry Erotica" instead, then
people *would* have remembered it. In fact, the Daily Show might have made it
the whole theme of the piece because of how it flows when you say it.

I commend Kevin Duane for being thoughtful enough not to use the term "Furry" in
associateion with "erotica" in front of the Daily Show's camera.

> > Also, there was no indication that Kevin Duane showed them those
> pieces. They
> > were edited into the story afterward and could have come from
> anywhere. They
> > *probably* came from the CD's, but who's to say that Mo didn't buy
> one of the
> > discs and use it afterwards to grab the images?

> Yeah, but this guy holds a rep of doing more things that aren't
> considered exactly on the up and up. Which, I suppose, is one reason
> why he'd end up in a gay sci-fi convention rather than an anthro
> convention, which he seems to have been barred from for one reason or
> another.

Reputation is the core issue here... in one paragraph you seem to be damning the
show for hurting the fandom's reputation, and tarnishing the term
"anthropomorphic". Then in your next paragraph you are making claims about
Kevin Duane's motives based on *his* reputation.

Kevin Duane, to my knowlege, has only been banned from *ONE* furry convention.
Mainly because of specific behavior from the previous year, and what seems to be
a personal hatred between him and that convention's staff. His reputation
aside, what do you *actually* know about Kevin Duane?

My *guess* is that Kevin attends MANY conventions other than Furry ones. He has
a fannish history going back way before the first furry conventions, but all
anyone here sees of him is his Animal Magnetism CDs, and that he looks like
"Igor" from Young Frankenstein. It's too easy to judge a book by its cover, and
in my opinion, Kevin has been sorely judged.

Brian O'connell

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
Not saying that either, but the concept that furry fans are somehow
supposed to be more widely accepted or have an altogether cleaner appearance
than any other form of fandom, is both unrealistic and technically
impossible... Look back over 10 years, and tell me that out any particular
genre, the furries were somehow more socially acceptable than any other
fannish group... They *weren't*... I remember the "Skunk Fucker Party"
posters from 1989/90, and those were the days when we were a fresh, new,
neato-keen, not yet humping plushies or puppies fandom... The spooge to
clean ratio was about 2 out of 5, the furries weren't officially on the
mainstream internet, and there was only one furry con to speak of... And yet
we were the "Skunk Fuckers"...

Considering the circumstances at the time, the term wasn't exactly
appropo, nor was it accurate... And yet we were considered as the weirdo
freaks back then too... I'm sure that the folks in 'Brazzle in the early
80's got interesting looks as well, for saying they were into cartoons with
funny animals in them... But hey, remember too, that D&D is satanic, that
Magic is a dive into the realm of damnation, that comic books lead to mass
murder, crime, and even rock and roll and dancing...

The main difference here, is that we're the only ones who get laughed
at, who bitch about it... And they just looooove it when we're squealing
like stuck pigs, just because someone said the word "Weirdo"... Remember
that nowadays when it comes to the mainstream, they're attempting to appeal
to a demographic market that ranges from 16-24, most of which's mentalities
still range around 12-18... And most folks want to imagine themselves as
being more normal than anyone else... That cult of normalcy is why we have
"Most Dangerous Stunts/Polic Chases/Mosh Pits", entire documentaries on
Jeffry Daughmer and other mass murderers, and television shows that make
normalcy seem to be a great adventure, even if you're hurling yourself off a
cliff with a bungee cord strapped to your ankle (normal-Psharight)...

And then there's the sports fans, who, for lack of a better comparison,
act like howler monkeys on crank... But they're acceptable... Why? Because
almost everybody profits from them...

Music fans? They're made fun of in movies and television shows all the
time, but do we hear them complaining? Do they decide to listen to Patty
Duke, since everyone is down on Marilyn Manson? Hell no... And nobody
complains about them either, because almost everybody can profit from them
as well...

Comics fans? Gaming fans? Furry fans? Sci-Fi fans? They're all freaks!
Because only a few people who know the market for them, can actually profit
from them... Beer companies? Nah, they can't profit from fans, most of them
wouldn't touch cough syrup if it had alcohol in it... Snack companies? They
profit from everyone, so they aren't losing money even wasting a thought on
fans... Computer companies? They just looooove the fans, little keyboard
pounding net junkie geeks that they are... They're the tech company's bread
and butter... But if you look at the demographics, most of the big companies
hate fans for one reason and one reason only: "They're weird, and dammit, we
don't have a demographic category for them at all!"... How do you assign a
value for a movie viewer demographic for 25-30 y.o. adults without children
attending a movie screening that's intended for 25-35 y.o. adults with
families?

So you see, it's far more profitable to attack any odd groups... We
cannot attack people on their race anymore, that's a no-no... Can't attack
based on sex, or on nationality, or any other reasons anymore... But
attacking anyone you want based on their interests, ahhh, now you're talking
something that there's open season on... Habits and hobbies? Oh yes, there's
more than ample room for paper tigers there... It doesn't even matter if
it's a smallish group with odd interests, they can make any group look bad
as a whole... Take Hangdog and how he influences the appearance of the
Burned Furs, for example... How many people would be willing to take the
BF's seriously, let alone agree with it, if he simply shut up?

Unfortunately that's the realm of how social engineering and darwinism
operates... And it always will...

Except in the case of the guy with the clown wig at sports events, with
the "Luke 7:16" sign, he was arrested for stalking and attempted murder...
And yet it was hardly even a blip with the sports fans... Parents pounding
each other into a bloody pulp at their kids' games... That was hardly a blip
either... "Because guldurnit, sports are the American way! We can't let the
fact that we're on the virge of looking like the psychotically deranged
society we've become, stop us from enjoying our great American past time!!!"

THESE are the normal people that we're "trying" to get to accept us?
Half of them, if it was legal, would put on a white hood and start burning
crosses on peoples' lawns, and you want them to consider *us* normal?

Ain't gonna happen...


ilr

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to

> I don't accept that Furry Fandom should have to be accepted as a freak
> show. I don't accept that we should have to accept it being portrayed as such
> everytime a feature or article about it is produced. And I don't accept that
> we should accept material or attitudes that contribute to the perception of the
> Fandom as a freak show.
>
>
>
I wonder how many people thought Shakespeare's plays were a freakshow when
they first came out? Witches, Ghosts, Fairies and some Kooky Satyr. It was
like a bunch of fairy-tales for adults.


Blah, but why should I even bother mentioning that to the Culturally Elite?
'They' usually just get all uppity about the classics and insult your education
level just because it's aligned with popular belief.
-Ilr

Al Goldman

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
In article <8st18u$1ssi$1...@velox.critter.net>, "Brian O'connell"
<furball1_(furball-one)_hates_s...@uswest.net> writes:

<snip> lots of stuff

>
> THESE are the normal people that we're "trying" to get to accept us?
>


Very well put! Society does sell us pre-fabricated, for profit fantasies and
sanctions activities just as strange as furry fandom.

Part of the fun of furry fandom is the DIY nature of our artists and writers.
There is lots of poor quality and poor taste artwork in furry fandom, but the
fun the artists is having in its creation is what is truly important. Personal
expression is to be admired even if the results are not appreciated.

Al Goldman


Laws are sand, Customs are rock. Laws can be evaded and punishment excaped, but
an openly transgressed custom brings sure punishement.

- Mark Twain

Terry Whittier

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to

Ebony Leopard <tamar_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8sr9ov$h3m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > ...People are so quick to jump to conclusions.
>
> Yeah, but this guy holds a rep of doing more things that aren't
> considered exactly on the up and up. Which, I suppose, is one reason
> why he'd end up in a gay sci-fi convention rather than an anthro
> convention, which he seems to have been barred from for one reason or
> another.

Don't be quick to jump to conclusions.
Kevin was at Gaylaxicon to try new marketing waters AND not at another Furry
con that same weekend, deliberately so that he would not compete with one of
his wholesale customers at that other con.

It's people who mindlessly speculate, rather than obtain (or even think to
ask for) solid information, who end up doing the most disservice to Furry
Fandom by spreading baseless rumors.

Terry Whittier

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to

Ebony Leopard <tamar_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8sr9ov$h3m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <39EFEAC5...@home.com>,

> Yeah, and now when ever anyone who saw the show sees or hear's the term
> anthropomophic they're going to related it to gay sci-fi and erotica.
> Kinda hard to push anthro art and comics to the mainstream when now
> it's being associated with nerdy erotic art (skip the association with
> gay sci-fi, ), but just the fact that the term and artform is being
> shown in a "newesque" story done to "dis" what it was reporting in the
> first place, I can't say that's exactly a positive step forward for
> mainstream acceptance.

So, what do Furries care what other people think? Isn't this the country of
free expression?

And since when was it such a bad thing to be gay? Or be associated with
gays?

Terry Whittier

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to

ilr <i...@rof.net> wrote in message news:8st3hc$k2m$1...@raccoon.fur.com...

>
> I wonder how many people thought Shakespeare's plays were a freakshow when
> they first came out? Witches, Ghosts, Fairies and some Kooky Satyr. It
was
> like a bunch of fairy-tales for adults.

People probably thought it was wonderful. Fairy tales were as much a part of
life back then as scientific thought is part of ours. Shakespeare wasn't the
first person to write plays that included references to commonly-held
conceptions. All those spooky things were an every-day part of the culture
of the time. Shakespeare used those commonly-help conceptions and myths in a
satirical way, with humor, warmth and wit. Shakespeare's plays were huge
hits in his day. Partly because he poked fun at some of those horrifying
concepts and beings, which most adults of the day were more than a little
bit in fear or awe of. Back then, people _believed_ in witches. And feared
them. Daily.

Terry Whittier

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to

Richard Chandler - WA Resident <mau...@kendra.com> wrote in message
news:001021115...@mauser.at.kendra.com...

> In article <211020000925085320%mathu/e...@my-deja.com>, Mathue <mathu/e@my-
> deja.com> writes:
> > Geeze, lets get our undies in a bunch _only_ over genuine media.
>
> You're Right! The National Enquirer could do a year-long series slamming
> furries and it wouldn't matter. It doesn't matter until we finally get
Dissed
> in the New York Times.
>

Perspective. We need some.
The Daily Show is not going to put Furry Fandom on the map or wipe it off.
The segment about Gaylaxicon was a poof piece (sorry... I had to say it!),
and thus, by
it's nature and tone, it is not real journalism. It's simply there to fill
time with pretty images in order
to sell advertising.

Actually, the one overwhelming impression I got from the segment was how
utterly unprepared the
reporter was. He completely torpedoed any hope that viewers will take
anything about the piece
with the slightest seriousness. In one ear and out the other. Ask a person
10 minutes after he saw the
piece what the convention name was, what it was about, if they showed any
art on the screen, if they showed
any animals on the screen, and 999,999 people out of one million will say
"Huh? What convention?
What animals? Did they show something like that?"

Terry Whittier

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00
to
Thank you for the level-headed response.

Actually, the incident with being on the outs with Anthrocon stems from a
misunderstanding
or disagreement between Conway and Duane. (Hmmm... sounds like a name of a
vaudeville
team...) I won't go into it here, except to say that Kevin is not welcome to
attend
Anthrocon, by dictate of the chair. I have yet to hear an explanation, and a
fair rebuttal, of the
reason for the dis-invitation. Not that the Chair of a convention is legally
bound to offer such
explanation in writing. But so far, all I've heard is third-hand innuendo.
No solid facts. So I
won't comment until I have something much more substantial.

Kevin is welcome at all other conventions, whether Furry or not. He is a
hard-working, single-mindedly
ethical, fun-loving businessman who is busy seeing that many Furry artists
get a chance to make even
more money off their artwork than they previously thought possible. He can
regularly be seen at
conventions turning over much of the day's receipts in large wads of cash to
artists with whom he
has contracted. For example, at San Diego Comicon this year (at Darrel's
small Furry sub-con), he paid
Jim Groat in cash, in advance, for publishing rights to some of his work.

There are other incidents of cash payments to which I have been witness. If
someone wants, he
can poll some of the artists who have appeared on Kevin's CDs. Get the word
directly, rather than
speculate and infer, ad infinitum. An activity which does no body any credit
and which merely
cheapens this forum.


Darrel L. Exline <Dar...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39F203E4...@home.com...

Terry Whittier

unread,
Oct 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/21/00