FILK: Weekend Furry Fan Convention

11 views
Skip to first unread message

Gabriel Gentile

unread,
May 19, 2002, 9:45:54 PM5/19/02
to
TTTO: "Science Fiction Double Feature", from the musical "The Rocky Horror
Show" by Richard O'Brien

Darrel Exline felt faint
When he saw Beiro paint
Nude Minerva with some toys
And Merlino was there
From the Prancing Skiltaire
On the lookout for some desperate boys
Eric Blumrich got plastered
He foresaw disaster
He wished that Steve Martin was dead
A filk Gentile would sing
While we watched Lion King
And this is how the program read

Weekend Furry
Fan Convention
Silfur causes
Anal tension
See 'stylers freaking
Out the mundanes
The hotel staff
Cleans up on Monday
Who-o-o-ooooooooooah
At the weekend
Furry fandom
Convention

I know Patrin and Trotman
Are not seen a lot, man
When they tried to complain, they got burned
And I really got scared
When Bondage Bob appeared
But the presence of soap made him turn
Kjartan Arnorsson farted
When George acted retarded
And cleared out the whole dealer's room
But we knew of course
When Groat used lethal force
That Pikachu would soon meet his doom

At the...

Weekend Furry
Fan Convention
Silfur causes
Anal tension
See 'stylers freaking
Out the mundanes
The hotel staff
Cleans up on Monday
Who-o-o-ooooooooooah
At the weekend
Furry fandom
Convention
Don't walk, but run
What fun
At the weekend
Furry fandom
Convention
With machine guns
In Tucson
At the weekend
Furry fandom
Convention
With Smurfs well-done
By the ton
At the weekend
Furry fandom
Convention

Don Sanders

unread,
May 20, 2002, 6:02:49 AM5/20/02
to
In article <B90DBFB4.15D2C%spook...@earthlink.net>,
spook...@earthlink.net says...

*** Interjects the sounds of crickets, frogs and general silence ***

HTH

Allen Kitchen

unread,
May 20, 2002, 4:28:39 PM5/20/02
to

Don Sanders wrote:

> *** Interjects the sounds of crickets, frogs and general silence ***
>
> HTH

I love a good filk. Unfortunately, this one was less than funny
and since I don't know the original song I have no way of knowing if
the rhymes were correctly done or not. Without knowing the song,
it just looked like another diatribe. And an unfunny one at that.

Now, something about a terrible slaughter of plushie animals by
Groat set to music... that would be funny!

Hmm. Something for me to work on tonight. :)

Allen Kitchen (shockwave)

Gabriel Gentile

unread,
May 20, 2002, 4:38:26 PM5/20/02
to
> Without knowing the song,
> it just looked like another diatribe. And an unfunny one at that.

Okay, so it was an Insta-Filk!

SUE me!

Blackberry

unread,
May 20, 2002, 4:53:41 PM5/20/02
to

Well, uh, the new lyrics did more or less match the original tune, anyway. =:)
I think I'll leave my comments at that.

--
I believe in everything, nothing is sacred.
I believe in nothing, everything is sacred.
- from "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues" by Tom Robbins

M. Mitchell Marmel

unread,
May 20, 2002, 7:36:57 PM5/20/02
to
Gabriel Gentile wrote:
>
> TTTO: "Science Fiction Double Feature", from the musical "The Rocky Horror
> Show" by Richard O'Brien

Scans OK, but the others are right, it's a tad shrill.

Here's a couple that I wrote after CF8 (and if you check the Google archives,
Doodles was kind enough to post for me). Compare and contrast with this lil
time capsule from five years ago.

Some notes:

1. Obviously, CF has survived and even thrived (but looked REAL rocky until
Darrel took over and started straightening things out). At one point, it was
thought that CF would have to be put out of its misery and restarted, hence the
first verse.

2. At the time, I thought that CFE was going to keep going. However, Trish
shut down operations after the first Ohio edition.

3. And of course, AAC is now just AC. :D

4. Philcon? Who cares anymore? We got AC. :D

5. Duckon: Not sure what's going on there nowadays. I get the impression that
MFF has pretty much replaced the furry track there.

(TTTO Sink the Bismark)

We gotta sink that con-vent-ion
That's making such a fuss
We gotta sink Con-Fur-Ence
'Cos the fen depend on us

We hit the decks a'runnin', boys
To bring that con around
We couldn't fix ConFurEnce, so
ConFurEnce did go down.

The Wreck of the Good Con Confurence

(to the tune of THE EDMUND FITZGERALD by Gordon Lightfoot)

(DISCLAIMER: Anybody taking this song seriously...deserves to.)

The legend lives on from Vancouver on down
Of the con catering to things furry
Confurence, it's said, never stopped giving head
On the third weekend of January

With fanboys galore - 26,000 tons more
Than the Buena Park Hotel weiged empty
The good con and crew was a bone to be chewed
When the Eighty Percenters came early

The con was the pride of the Garden Grove side
Coming out of the Marquis and Rad'sson
As the big furcons go it was bigger than most
With a crew and con chairman well seasoned

It started off small, t'was no trouble at all
Young men swapping tongues with no worry
But word got out fast: "ConFurEnce is a blast!
And you don't even have to be furry!"

The assault weapons crowd made a rat-a-tat sound
As the Eighty Percenters were whaling
And every fur knew, they'd be covered in spooge
If they didn't stand back from the railing

The dawn came late and complaints had to wait
'Cos the chairman was off, no-one knew where
When afternoon came, 'twas no use to complain
'Cos there still was no sign of the Con chair

When the Lasagna Feed came, the old cook came out front
Saying People, it's too rough to feed ya
At 7PM OCPD came in
He said People, it's been good to know ya

The Con chair refused to listen to news
That CF wasn't served by his presence
So it came to pass that the fun didn't last
'Twas the wreck of the good con ConFurence

Does anyone know where the furfen can go
To a con that will have no complaint now?
The witnesses say CF'd be here today
If they'd just shown a little restraint now.

CF is split up and CF is capsized
We knew it would come sooner or later
All that remains of the con is the blame
And some white goo in the ele-va-tor

Now Duckon rolls, and Albany sings
And new cons will spring up, I reckon
Old Philcon's still there in Liberty's chair
San Diego and Worldcon still beckon.

And further on, MoreFurCon
Takes in what Lake Erie can send her
CF may be gone but the fandom lives on
'Twill take more than one con gone to end her

In discussions on-line, the believers may whine,
"ConFurEnce now must be defended!"
Well, the shell may survive and appear quite alive
But the spirit behind it has ended!

The legend lives on from Vancouver on down
Of the con catering to things furry
Confurence, it's said, never stopped giving head
On the third weekend of January!

-MMM-


--
============================================================================
M. Mitchell Marmel \ Scattered, smothered, covered, chunked,
Drexel University Dept. of Mat. Eng. \ whipped, beaten, chained and pierced.
Fibrous Materials Research Center \ *THE BEST HASHBROWNS IN THE WORLD!*
http://fmrc.coe.drexel.edu \ marm...@drexel.edu
============================================================================
TaliVisions: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/grad/marmelmm/Talivisions/index.html
ICQ # 58305217

Bob M. Guthrie

unread,
May 20, 2002, 8:51:51 PM5/20/02
to
In article <3CE9889A...@drexel.edu>,

"M. Mitchell Marmel" <marm...@drexel.edu> wrote:

> Here's a couple that I wrote after CF8 (and if you check the Google archives,
> Doodles was kind enough to post for me). Compare and contrast with this lil

> time capsule from five years ago...

> ...The good con and crew was a bone to be chewed
> When the Eighty Percenters came early,...

> ...As the Eighty Percenters were whaling...

> -MMM-


Okay, i got all the terms except the "Eighty Percenters." Wot, or Who,
is them "Eighty Percenters.?"

BMG

Allen Kitchen

unread,
May 20, 2002, 9:31:19 PM5/20/02
to

"M. Mitchell Marmel" wrote:

> The Wreck of the Good Con Confurence
>
> (to the tune of THE EDMUND FITZGERALD by Gordon Lightfoot)
>
> (DISCLAIMER: Anybody taking this song seriously...deserves to.)

LOL!!

BraVO sir, bravo! Well written indeed :)

Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
http://www.blkbox.com/~osprey/

Allen Kitchen

unread,
May 20, 2002, 10:17:35 PM5/20/02
to
With a tilt of the hat to a well-known Barneyphobe... :)


Smash the Plush Toys
(a filk sung to Bon Jovi's "Wanted Dead or Alive.")


It's all the same.
Only the names have changed.
Every day,
the kids are wasting away.
In front of the tube,
beneath the polychromatic glow,
they say they love us,
cause a dinosaur says so.

Smash the plush toys!
With a steel gaze, I ride.
They're wanted...
Dead or alive!
Wanted... Dead or Alive!

Teletubbies.
I stabbed them one by one.
The reason you see,
was there wasn't nothing on!
Took a .45
and got Zak and Weezie next.
Looked at the TV guide;
Barney's up, I guess...

Smash the plush toys!
With a steel gaze, I ride.
They're wanted...
Dead or alive!
Wanted... Dead or Alive!

Well now Elmo's trashed -
a loaded shotgun blew him through.
The minutes passed,
then I got that bastard, Pooh!
I've been through every store,
from Target to the mall.
I've seen a million Smurf toys,
and I've shot them all!

Smash the plush toys!
With a steel gaze, I ride.
They're wanted...
Dead or alive!
They aren't just plush toys!
It's the greed I deride!
I'll get them...
Dead or alive!
Dead or Alive! Dead or Alive! Dead or Alive!

Allen Kitchen (shockwave)

Gabriel Gentile

unread,
May 20, 2002, 11:56:20 PM5/20/02
to
*SIGH*

Alright, Mitch...

I -KNOW- when I'm licked!

Gabriel Gentile

unread,
May 20, 2002, 11:58:57 PM5/20/02
to
Hm, not bad.

First attempt?

Atara

unread,
May 21, 2002, 12:21:42 AM5/21/02
to
marm...@drexel.edu (M. Mitchell Marmel) wrote in
<3CE9889A...@drexel.edu>:

>The Wreck of the Good Con Confurence
>
>(to the tune of THE EDMUND FITZGERALD by Gordon Lightfoot)
>

Man. That's a keeper. Thanks. =)

--
Atara
"Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus."
http://www.FurNation.com/Atara/
***What doesn't fit in my email addy? NADA.***

Allen Kitchen

unread,
May 21, 2002, 1:43:05 AM5/21/02
to

Gabriel Gentile wrote:
>
> Hm, not bad.
>
> First attempt?

Hardly. But only 20 minutes of effort went into it.
I had problems when I realized that the source song
had far fewer lyrics than I originally thought.

Ah, well. 'Sall in fun :)

ilr

unread,
May 21, 2002, 6:19:49 AM5/21/02
to

"Gabriel Gentile" <spook...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:B90EC928.15E03%

> SUE me!

If I was Blumrich, Trotman, or Patrin, I probably would.

...Because they Loovvve Everybody, especially me =)


Gabriel Gentile

unread,
May 21, 2002, 10:53:36 AM5/21/02
to

>> SUE me!
>
> If I was Blumrich, Trotman, or Patrin, I probably would.

I have a philosophy about that sort of thing...

What they don't know won't hurt ME!

Karl Xydexx Jorgensen

unread,
May 21, 2002, 12:32:36 PM5/21/02
to

Does anyone know what the final attendance was at CF for 2002? Considering
attendance declined 43% between 1998 and last year, you'd think we'd hear of a
reversal of this downward trend if there was one.


>In discussions on-line, the believers may whine,
>"ConFurEnce now must be defended!"
>Well, the shell may survive and appear quite alive
>But the spirit behind it has ended!

No comment.

--
_________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, KSC
Anthrofurry Infocenter:
http://www.xydexx.com/anthrofurry

Glen Wooten

unread,
May 21, 2002, 12:55:44 PM5/21/02
to
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen <xydexx_sq...@lxyxcxoxs.com> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know what the final attendance was at CF for 2002?
> Considering attendance declined 43% between 1998 and last year, you'd
> think we'd hear of a reversal of this downward trend if there was one.

The figures were about what they were last year, possibly the tiniest bit
lower (620+). What hurt us this year was the presence of 5 major events
in the greater LA area that tapped some of our attendees (as well as some
staff). As to some of the people spouting "Maybe 200 people, more dealers
than attendees...", uh, no - that was just wrong, and I have no idea where
you got that.

In other words; "The reports of ConFurence's demise are greatly
exaggretated".

--
Glen Wooten
_________________________________________________________

| primary: jag...@rexx.com | secondary: leo...@aol.com |
_________________________________________________________

| Terrie's web page: http://www.rexx.com/~jaguar |
_________________________________________________________

Todd Knarr

unread,
May 21, 2002, 1:15:31 PM5/21/02
to
In alt.fan.furry <acdu6g$doq$1...@velox.critter.net> Glen Wooten <jag...@rexx.com> wrote:
> staff). As to some of the people spouting "Maybe 200 people, more dealers
> than attendees...", uh, no - that was just wrong, and I have no idea where
> you got that.

Probably the same place I got the impression of a dead con last year: there
was way more convention space than there was convention. The space CF is in
is good for the 1200 attendee convention it was planned for, and a 600-700
attendee convention rattles around in it.

--
Safety hint, dude ... never, ever get up to go to the john at night unless
you can actually feel your body.
-- Sonya Marie Gildencrantz

Karl Xydexx Jorgensen

unread,
May 21, 2002, 2:16:31 PM5/21/02
to
Glen Wooten wrote:
>The figures were about what they were last year, possibly the tiniest bit
>lower (620+).

Attendance at CF last year was reportedly 710, according to Darrel.

So if attendance fell again this year to 620, then that'd mean CF has lost 50%
of their attendees since 1998, correct?

(Dr.-Cat-Style-Disclaimer: CF's attendance last year was 705, according to
other sources. I'd say attendance was "around 700", but I don't wanna
make that mistake again as I still remember the legendary fire and brimstone
Darrel unleashed the last time someone said that, even though Darrel himself
later informed us attendance was 708---which comes pretty close to "around 700"
IMHO, but YMMV.)

Glen Wooten

unread,
May 21, 2002, 2:38:39 PM5/21/02
to
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen <xydexx_sq...@lxyxcxoxs.com> wrote:
> Glen Wooten wrote:
>>The figures were about what they were last year, possibly the tiniest bit
>>lower (620+).
>
> Attendance at CF last year was reportedly 710, according to Darrel.
>
> So if attendance fell again this year to 620, then that'd mean CF has
> lost 50% of their attendees since 1998, correct?

Then I have made a mistake (forgetting last year's numbers) - it was my
understanding that last year's figures were 650 or so (I forgot, so sue
me...), and that this year's figures were plus OR minus 5% (giving the
lower figure to be conservative - wouldn't want people to claim I was
inflating the figures...) So if was 710 last year, then this year would
come in the range of 675 to 745 - but that is JUST my guesstimate, exact
attendance counts have not been made yet (worrying more about getting the
art show done {which it has been - all cheques went out last week}, and
tax paperwork, etc...) CF is more or less holding it's attendance - not
at the high of 1200+ of CF8, no - but there are so many reasons why (very
few having to do with things under CF's control) that it's quite
understandable - we are no longer the only game in town (or country)
anymore.

M. Mitchell Marmel

unread,
May 21, 2002, 3:05:08 PM5/21/02
to
"Bob M. Guthrie" wrote:

> Okay, i got all the terms except the "Eighty Percenters." Wot, or Who,
> is them "Eighty Percenters.?"

This would be the eighty percent of the attendees who were there just to
find/boink a boyfriend and had no interest in the Con programming. The actual
percentage may have been off slightly. :)

M. Mitchell Marmel

unread,
May 21, 2002, 3:05:41 PM5/21/02
to
Allen Kitchen wrote:
>
> "M. Mitchell Marmel" wrote:
>
> > The Wreck of the Good Con Confurence
> >
> > (to the tune of THE EDMUND FITZGERALD by Gordon Lightfoot)
> >
> > (DISCLAIMER: Anybody taking this song seriously...deserves to.)
>
> LOL!!
>
> BraVO sir, bravo! Well written indeed :)

Thankee! Fortunately, the filk proved untrue. :D

M. Mitchell Marmel

unread,
May 21, 2002, 3:10:32 PM5/21/02
to
Glen Wooten wrote:

> tax paperwork, etc...) CF is more or less holding it's attendance - not
> at the high of 1200+ of CF8, no - but there are so many reasons why (very
> few having to do with things under CF's control) that it's quite
> understandable - we are no longer the only game in town (or country)
> anymore.

And more to the point, quality is, IMHO, more important than quantity.

600 friends sharing a common interest makes for a much more enjoyable experience
than 600 friends and 600 interlopers 'only there for the action'. :)

M. Mitchell Marmel

unread,
May 21, 2002, 3:12:02 PM5/21/02
to

Now, now, keep trying. I've been writing song parodies since grade school
(second grade, 1969 or thereabouts).

M. Mitchell Marmel

unread,
May 21, 2002, 3:12:22 PM5/21/02
to
Atara wrote:
>
> marm...@drexel.edu (M. Mitchell Marmel) wrote in
> <3CE9889A...@drexel.edu>:
>
> >The Wreck of the Good Con Confurence
> >
> >(to the tune of THE EDMUND FITZGERALD by Gordon Lightfoot)
> >
>
> Man. That's a keeper. Thanks. =)

Thankee!

Bob Guthrie

unread,
May 21, 2002, 3:15:34 PM5/21/02
to
In article <3CEA9A64...@drexel.edu>,

"M. Mitchell Marmel" <marm...@drexel.edu> wrote:

> "Bob M. Guthrie" wrote:
>
> > Okay, i got all the terms except the "Eighty Percenters." Wot, or Who,
> > is them "Eighty Percenters.?"
>
> This would be the eighty percent of the attendees who were there just to
> find/boink a boyfriend and had no interest in the Con programming. The actual
> percentage may have been off slightly. :)


Ah!. Danke =)

BMG

Karl Xydexx Jorgensen

unread,
May 21, 2002, 5:19:26 PM5/21/02
to
M. Mitchell Marmel wrote:
>600 friends sharing a common interest makes for a much more enjoyable
>experience than 600 friends and 600 interlopers 'only there for the
>action'.

"In discussions on-line, the believers may whine,


"ConFurEnce now must be defended!"
Well, the shell may survive and appear quite alive
But the spirit behind it has ended!"

I'm just savoring the irony of things coming full circle. -:D

mhirtes

unread,
May 21, 2002, 7:09:19 PM5/21/02
to

Glen Wooten wrote:
>
>
> In other words; "The reports of ConFurence's demise are greatly
> exaggretated".

As well as it's ongoing survivabilty rate.

mhirtes

unread,
May 21, 2002, 7:11:28 PM5/21/02
to

Glen Wooten wrote:
>
> art show done {which it has been - all cheques went out last week}, and

> CF is more or less holding it's attendance - not
> at the high of 1200+ of CF8,

Maybe Darell should advertise in gay publications like Merlino did for 8
& get some leathermen bussed in.

"Yyyyyyyyy-M-C-A!!!"

Truth Hurts

unread,
May 23, 2002, 1:07:29 PM5/23/02
to
> M. Mitchell Marmel wrote:
> >600 friends sharing a common interest makes for a much more enjoyable
> >experience than 600 friends and 600 interlopers 'only there for the
> >action'.

A convention where 1200 friends share a common interest is better
than a convention where half the paying attendees get accused of being
freeloaders or interlopers.

The Truth Hurts.

Truth Hurts

unread,
May 23, 2002, 1:08:41 PM5/23/02
to
> M. Mitchell Marmel wrote:
> >600 friends sharing a common interest makes for a much more enjoyable
> >experience than 600 friends and 600 interlopers 'only there for the
> >action'.

A convention where 1200 friends share a common interest is better

M. Mitchell Marmel

unread,
May 23, 2002, 2:22:42 PM5/23/02
to
Truth Hurts wrote:

> A convention where 1200 friends share a common interest is better
> than a convention where half the paying attendees get accused of being
> freeloaders or interlopers.

Yup. Shame there's not many like that around.

> The Truth Hurts.

So does your using an actual name and email address, apparently. >:D

Timmy Ramone

unread,
May 24, 2002, 1:37:09 PM5/24/02
to
Glen Wooten wrote:
>
> CF is more or less holding it's attendance - not at the high
> of 1200+ of CF8, no - but there are so many reasons why (very
> few having to do with things under CF's control) that it's quite
> understandable - we are no longer the only game in town (or country)
> anymore.

The polite interpretation of that statement is that CF can no longer
compete with other conventions. However, even at the time of CF9,
there were "other games in town." Yet CF was still able to command
attendances of over 1000 for at least two years running.

The fall-off in membership at CF10 was understandable, and I won't
cover the myriad of reasons why. However, CF has had THREE years
in which to recover -- even moving back to one of its old venues --
yet CF membership seems to have settled at about half of its peak,
and will likely remain so for the forseeable future (as I predicted
it would).

The main reason CF can't regain its lost membership is because the
new con-com, through a certain individual, made two critical P/R
errors early on: First, he aligned himself with the Burned Furs.
That was a big mistake. To his credit, he has backed off on those
statements quite a bit, but the damage was already done. Second,
this same individual made it clear that a "certain element" was
no longer welcome at CF. The "certain element" heard this and has
moved on to other conventions (look at the sudden jump in attendance
at other cons, one convention in particular, and it is easy to see
where they went). Unfortunately, this "certain element" also has
"lots of money" and likes to spend it. This has hurt CF financially,
as well (if one believes the con reports I've seen from various
dealers).

This analysis is not so much a criticism as an observation; I'm not
all that happy with that "certain element," either. Then again, I'm
not a dealer. If CF wants to radically increase its membership, then
some of the attitudes at the top have to change. But if CF is happy
where it is at and where it likely will be for some time to come,
then there is no basis for complaints from the con-com about
membership, *especially* complaints about some amorphous group
of "freeloaders." 6-700 is nearly the break-even point for any
convention, which means CF should be happy to get all the attendees
it can get, even if some of them don't pay full admission. These
"freeloaders" might possibly be persuaded to pay a full membership
the next time, providing the convention has something to offer them
other than threats and insults.

The only thing I'll add is that, for all the badmouthing of Mark
Merlino and his crowd, they were able to set membership records
that, so far, the "new and improved" CF has yet to achieve.
Furthermore, without CF, there would have been no CF East and no
Duckon Furry Track. There would be no Mephit, no Midwest, no
Anthrocon and no Further Confusion. CF was the first and, for
over a decade, the biggest of all the furry gatherings. Whether
you like him or not, he deserves credit for that.

--
"Hey, ho -- let's go!" -Ramones

Karl Xydexx Jorgensen

unread,
May 24, 2002, 6:21:34 PM5/24/02
to
Timmy Ramone wrote:
>The main reason CF can't regain its lost membership is because the
>new con-com, through a certain individual, made two critical P/R
>errors early on: First, he aligned himself with the Burned Furs.
>That was a big mistake. To his credit, he has backed off on those
>statements quite a bit, but the damage was already done.

Indeed. In some cases, collateral damage is still being done by (the one or
two remaining) Burned Furs, but I can't really blame Darrel for that since it's
beyond his control.

>6-700 is nearly the break-even point for any convention, which
>means CF should be happy to get all the attendees it can get,
>even if some of them don't pay full admission. These "freeloaders"
>might possibly be persuaded to pay a full membership the next
>time, providing the convention has something to offer them
>other than threats and insults.

Good point. I suspect there's only a number of years Darrel is going to be
willing to invest thousands of his own money to make up CF's operating losses.

As I've said before, SimFandom would be an interesting game.

Karl Xydexx Jorgensen

unread,
May 24, 2002, 6:56:17 PM5/24/02
to
Truth Hurts wrote:
> A convention where 1200 friends share a common interest is better
>than a convention where half the paying attendees get accused of being
>freeloaders or interlopers.

I'd say a convention where 1200 friends share a common interest is a convention
that'll be around in years to come. Consider, if it costs about $30K to run a
convention, then they need to pull in at least that amount to survive. I
suspect most of that money comes from memberships.

Consider, if you've got 1200 people, at $35 per membership, that's $42K---but
if you've got 600 people at $35 per membership, that's only $21K. Add 50
dealers to that at $60 per table, that gives you another $3K.

Thus...

Attendance : 1200 600

Memberships : $42K $21K
Dealers : $ 3K $ 3K
Subtotal : $45K $24K
Running costs: -$30K -$30K
Balance : $15K -$ 6K

The argument could be made that those 600 members are "interlopers" because
"they don't spent money in the dealer's room," ergo they're not an asset to the
convention. Even if we assume 600 members buy stuff in the dealers room, and
600 members don't, the ones who don't are _still_ an asset to the convention
because provide money (via membership) to keep the con afloat.

I think the argument could easily be made that a convention driving its paying
members away by calling them "interlopers" is flushing $21,000 down the toilet.

Jim Doolittle

unread,
May 24, 2002, 10:32:00 PM5/24/02
to
In article <Xns9218CBC...@66.120.4.171>,

xydexx_sq...@lxyxcxoxs.com (Karl Xydexx Jorgensen) wrote:

> Truth Hurts wrote:
> > A convention where 1200 friends share a common interest is better
> >than a convention where half the paying attendees get accused of being
> >freeloaders or interlopers.
>
> I'd say a convention where 1200 friends share a common interest is a
> convention
> that'll be around in years to come. Consider, if it costs about $30K to run
> a
> convention, then they need to pull in at least that amount to survive. I
> suspect most of that money comes from memberships.


Conventions cost more as attendance goes up. It's something of a sliding
scale, you have more costs (more con books, more badges, more food for
the con suite, ect.) as your membership increases. Conversely, it costs
less to run smaller cons. It's not a fixed figure.

FurFest, with 500-600 attendees is costing a bit over 20 grand at this
point. Our finances are very comfortably in the black (have been since
our first year) and we are 100% self-sustaining at. We'll be around for
a while.

And yes, most of the con budget comes from memberships. We like our
members. We especially like our sponsors. :)


-Jim
2002 Midwest FurFest Chairman

--
Jim Doolittle
http://www.flayrah.com
Unusually good information

David Cooksey

unread,
May 25, 2002, 10:43:10 AM5/25/02
to
If anyone cares to see the FC Budgets since year one, feel free to take a
gander at http://www.anthroarts.org/about.html. You can see how things
change as FC grew. The 2001 and 2002 budgets should be up shortly now that I
have access to the web site again. We make this info public as an accounting
to the fandom and, more importantly, as a way for folks to educate
themselves on the costs associated with conventions.

David Cooksey
Director AAE, Inc


"Jim Doolittle" <dool...@speakeasy.org> wrote in message
news:doolittl-7FE31B...@corp.supernews.com...

Kay Shapero

unread,
May 26, 2002, 3:30:17 AM5/26/02
to
In article <Xns9218CBC...@66.120.4.171>,
xydexx_sq...@lxyxcxoxs.com says...

> The argument could be made that those 600 members are
>"interlopers" because
> "they don't spent money in the dealer's room,"
>ergo they're not an asset to the
> convention.

Excuse me, but I think there's probably been enough of a misunderstanding
because Darrel said "buyers" when he meant "buyers of memberships", i.e.
convention menbers. The "interlopers" are the people who show up but
*don't* pay for memberships instead sneaking into convention events.

--
Kay Shapero
kaysh...@nospamearthlink.net
Remove the obvious spamblock to reply
filk FAQ http://home.earthlink.net/~kayshapero/filkfaq.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~kayshapero/index.htm

Karl Xydexx Jorgensen

unread,
May 26, 2002, 12:41:42 PM5/26/02
to
Kay Shapero wrote:
>Excuse me, but I think there's probably been enough of a misunderstanding
>because Darrel said "buyers" when he meant "buyers of memberships", i.e.
>convention members. The "interlopers" are the people who show up but
>*don't* pay for memberships instead sneaking into convention events.

I don't think there's any misunderstanding---at least not to me---since Darrel
clarified he didn't think paying members were interlopers (or "freeloaders", as
the case may be). There are, however, other people who seem determined to
characterize paying members of CF as "interlopers" who are "only there for the
action".

I propose the attitude of making furry fans feel unwelcome has been a
significant factor behind CF's declining attendance in recent years. I'm sure
MMM will continue to smugly suggest fewer people attending CF is a Good Thing,
apparently oblivious to the fact it is costing Darrel thousands as a result.
Pretty high price to pay, if you ask me.

That's just my opinion, though.

As Timothy Fay mentioned, people will find little reason to attend if they
think all the convention has to offer them is threats and insults.

Glen Wooten

unread,
May 26, 2002, 3:28:07 PM5/26/02
to
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen <xydexx_sq...@lxyxcxoxs.com> wrote:
> Kay Shapero wrote:
>>Excuse me, but I think there's probably been enough of a misunderstanding
>>because Darrel said "buyers" when he meant "buyers of memberships", i.e.
>>convention members. The "interlopers" are the people who show up but
>>*don't* pay for memberships instead sneaking into convention events.
>
> I don't think there's any misunderstanding---at least not to me---since
> Darrel clarified he didn't think paying members were interlopers (or
> "freeloaders", as the case may be). There are, however, other people
> who seem determined to characterize paying members of CF as
> "interlopers" who are "only there for the action".
>
> I propose the attitude of making furry fans feel unwelcome has been a
> significant factor behind CF's declining attendance in recent years.
> I'm sure MMM will continue to smugly suggest fewer people attending CF
> is a Good Thing, apparently oblivious to the fact it is costing Darrel
> thousands as a result. Pretty high price to pay, if you ask me.

Okay, since Darrel's out of town, I will ask the question: What has
Darrel (or any staff of CF) done to "make the fans feel unwelcome"? Other
than people misunderstanding him, and claiming "this is what a friend of
mine heard someone say he did..." And let us not go into the "Burned Fur"
angle again - I work rather closely with Darrel in the running of CF, and
if he was a Burned Fur, I would not provide the assitance that I do to the
con.

If there is an actual, identifiable problem, I'd like to know about it so
that it can be corrected.

--
Glen Wooten
_______________________________________________________________

| primary: jag...@rexx.com | secondary: kar...@sbcglobal.net |
_______________________________________________________________

| Terrie & Glen's web page: http://www.rexx.com/~jaguar |
_______________________________________________________________

Cerulean

unread,
May 26, 2002, 5:25:53 PM5/26/02
to
Quoth Glen Wooten:

>Okay, since Darrel's out of town, I will ask the question: What has
>Darrel (or any staff of CF) done to "make the fans feel unwelcome"? Other
>than people misunderstanding him, and claiming "this is what a friend of
>mine heard someone say he did..." And let us not go into the "Burned Fur"
>angle again - I work rather closely with Darrel in the running of CF, and
>if he was a Burned Fur, I would not provide the assitance that I do to the
>con.
>
>If there is an actual, identifiable problem, I'd like to know about it so
>that it can be corrected.

Unfortunately, the problem is with the old-boy's network at large
making fans feel unwelcome, and Confurence, being the original furry
con, is going to be associated with that attitude if only because
people expect to have run-ins with other attendees. You can't control
what the vendordom says, but if you want to make fans feel welcome you
need to take not a merely ambiguous attitude ("We don't want to
attract the wrong kind of people") but a fully contrary attitude:
"EVERYONE who follows the rules is welcome, welcome, welcome!
Welcome!" It's working for other cons like Anthrocon. It has to be
sincerely reflected in what you say, what you do, and how you run the
con, if you want to counterbalance the angry image this fandom has. It
has to be enough to make an attendee think, "Even though I might be
surrounded by grudge-bearers, control freaks, homophobes, neophobes,
and elitists who would all rough me up and boot me out for the cut of
my hair if they could get away with it, they can't touch me because
the _people_in_charge_ really want me here and want to keep me coming
back."

--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( hJJaLd-,,hemhue 6u!ua+s!7 s! auo-ou 'a)edS uI,,

Kay Shapero

unread,
May 26, 2002, 6:03:44 PM5/26/02
to
In article <Xns921A809...@66.120.4.171>,
xydexx_sq...@lxyxcxoxs.com says...

>
> I propose the attitude of making furry fans feel unwelcome has been a
> significant factor behind CF's declining attendance in recent years.
> 'm sure
> MMM will continue to smugly suggest fewer people attending CF is a
> Good Thing,
> apparently oblivious to the fact it is costing Darrel thousands as a result.
> Pretty high price to pay, if you ask me.
>

This con has served as an on-line Rorshach test pretty much from the
beginning - right after each con, someone would rush to the computer to
report Terrible Goings On which was usually when the rest of us who
actually *attended* the thing heard about them. :-> And if half of what
was described had actually occured, we'd have probably been shut down by
the Vice Squad. It's not so very different, even if the specific
accusations change.
It's no more safe to rely on rumor now than it ever has about the
convention, so...

Have you seen anything in the ConFurence fliers or website that made you
feel unwelcome? If so, what?

Were you at the most recent ConFurence? If not, when was the last
ConFurence you attended?

Did you have a paid membership? (This includes GoHs - their memberships
are paid by the convention)

Did anybody make you feel unwelcome at the con?

If so, how did they do so?

What did you like?

What didn't you like?

Based on your OWN experiences, what would you recommend?

Karl Xydexx Jorgensen

unread,
May 27, 2002, 8:42:08 PM5/27/02
to
Glen Wooten wrote:

>Karl Xydexx Jorgensen wrote:
>> I propose the attitude of making furry fans feel unwelcome has been a
>> significant factor behind CF's declining attendance in recent years.
>> I'm sure MMM will continue to smugly suggest fewer people attending CF
>> is a Good Thing, apparently oblivious to the fact it is costing Darrel
>> thousands as a result. Pretty high price to pay, if you ask me.
>
>Okay, since Darrel's out of town, I will ask the question: What has
>Darrel (or any staff of CF) done to "make the fans feel unwelcome"?

You're asking the wrong question. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in stating
it's not Darrel's fault... at least not lately.



>If there is an actual, identifiable problem, I'd like to know about it
>so that it can be corrected.

Let's put it this way: If I were running a furry convention, and its
attendance were declining to such an degree that I had to invest thousands of
my own money to cover its operating losses, I wouldn't consider it very good PR
for my convention to have someone running around going "Those people who no
longer attend weren't assets to the convention anyway! We're surviving and
thriving without them! Haw haw haw!" It's just not the kinda thing that's
gonna give people a warm, fuzzy feeling about having supported the convention
in the past, and probably not a very effective way to get people to support it
in the future, y'know?

As I said, I don't think that's really within Darrel's control to do anything
about, though.

Karl Xydexx Jorgensen

unread,
May 27, 2002, 9:13:38 PM5/27/02
to
Kay Shapero wrote:
>Have you seen anything in the ConFurence fliers or website that made you
>feel unwelcome? If so, what?

Nope. I maintain there are other ways to make people feel unwelcome, however.

>Were you at the most recent ConFurence? If not, when was the last
>ConFurence you attended?

Nope. Haven't been there since CF9, which I attended as a sponsor.

>Did you have a paid membership? (This includes GoHs - their memberships
>are paid by the convention)

I have always had a paid membership at every furry convention I've attended.
In recent years, I've usually been a sponsor or supersponsor.



>Did anybody make you feel unwelcome at the con?

Nope. I maintain there are other ways to make people feel unwelcome, however.



>Based on your OWN experiences, what would you recommend?

Same as I told Glen Wooten: If I were running a furry convention, and its

attendance were declining to such an degree that I had to invest thousands of
my own money to cover its operating losses, I wouldn't consider it very good PR
for my convention to have someone running around going "Those people who no
longer attend weren't assets to the convention anyway! We're surviving and
thriving without them! Haw haw haw!"

It's just not the kinda thing that's gonna give people a warm, fuzzy feeling

about having supported the convention (as sponsors!) in the past, and probably

not a very effective way to get people to support it in the future, y'know?

As I've said, I'm sure MMM will continue to smugly suggest fewer people

attending CF is a Good Thing, apparently oblivious to the fact it is costing
Darrel thousands as a result.

--

Kay Shapero

unread,
May 27, 2002, 10:39:32 PM5/27/02
to
In article <Xns921BD58...@66.120.4.171>,
xydexx_sq...@lxyxcxoxs.com says...

> >Based on your OWN experiences, what would you recommend?
>
> Same as I told Glen Wooten: If I were running a furry convention, and its
> attendance were declining to such an degree that I had to invest thousands of
> my own money to cover its operating losses, I wouldn't consider it very good PR
> for my convention to have someone running around going "Those people who no
> longer attend weren't assets to the convention anyway! We're surviving and
> thriving without them! Haw haw haw!"
>
> As I've said, I'm sure MMM will continue to smugly suggest fewer people
> attending CF is a Good Thing, apparently oblivious to the fact it is costing
> Darrel thousands as a result.

Given that MMM is not on the concom, not part of constaff, doesn't even
*attend* the convention every year - exactly what is your recommendation?
That ConFurence *start* disinviting people?

Karl Xydexx Jorgensen

unread,
May 27, 2002, 11:28:43 PM5/27/02
to
Kay Shapero wrote:
>Given that MMM is not on the concom, not part of constaff, doesn't even
>*attend* the convention every year - exactly what is your
>recommendation? That ConFurence *start* disinviting people?

Not at all.

As I've said, I don't think there's much Darrel can do about it. Chances are
MMM probably feels as much regret about making fans feel unwelcome as he does
about writing a filk about "The Wreck of the Good Con Confurence."

Hey, I'm just making the observation; I never said I had all the answers.

Brian Sutton

unread,
May 28, 2002, 9:19:31 PM5/28/02
to

>Okay, since Darrel's out of town, I will ask the question: What has
>Darrel (or any staff of CF) done to "make the fans feel unwelcome"?

I can't really speak for the fans but in spite of having been told of his
insult to Radio Comix he made only a passing attempt to make amends ( a year
and a half later).


Brian Sutton

"They tried to corner the market on stupidity the way the Hunt brothers
tried with silver "
-Shon Howell

Visit my website @ http://hjg.kcomplex.com
for deals on Furry art & comics

Kay Shapero

unread,
May 29, 2002, 2:15:28 AM5/29/02
to
In article <Xns921BF21...@66.120.4.171>,
xydexx_sq...@lxyxcxoxs.com says...

> Not at all.
>
> As I've said, I don't think there's much Darrel can do about it. Chances are
> MMM probably feels as much regret about making fans feel unwelcome as he does
> about writing a filk about "The Wreck of the Good Con Confurence."
>
> Hey, I'm just making the observation; I never said I had all the answers.
>
>

And if you find the disapproval of one individual not part of the concom
who doesn't even come to the con every year such a barrier, you are
hereby invited by me to show up at ConFurence and have fun there. No, I
can't speak officially for the committee - only Darrel can do that. But
I've at least as much right to invite you as MMM is to disinvite you.

Meanwhile, what sort of programming do you think would be a good idea for
the con?

Karl Xydexx Jorgensen

unread,
May 30, 2002, 12:23:33 AM5/30/02
to
Kay Shapero wrote:
>I've at least as much right to invite you as MMM is to disinvite you.

Thx.


>Meanwhile, what sort of programming do you think would be a good idea
>for the con?

Having worked a 13-hour shift today, you'll have to excuse the brief reply as
my brain is not really in any condition to get too creative with programming
ideas at the moment.

These days I find myself fascinated by writing workshops, since I'm under the
strange impression that I probably write better than I draw. Perhaps some day
I'll do something really insane and publish a comic book about cute pink ponies
that squeak and explode, but more likely I will just add it to my ever-growing
list of things to procrastinate about.

I also like those Improv workshops[1], although I think they're geared toward
fursuiters[2] and folks who are a little more extroverted[3] than I am.

[1] I like to watch; not crazy about actually participating.
[2] I'm not one, I just help them move from place to place sometimes.
[3] Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Dr. Cat

unread,
May 30, 2002, 3:39:57 AM5/30/02
to
Glen Wooten <jag...@rexx.com> wrote:
: Okay, since Darrel's out of town, I will ask the question: What has
: Darrel (or any staff of CF) done to "make the fans feel unwelcome"?

: If there is an actual, identifiable problem, I'd like to know about it so

: that it can be corrected.

I think it might put some people off the way the convention director tends
to shoot his mouth off about things he's upset about in alt.fan.furry. Even
if he's right about something, coming in and swearing at people in anger is
not the kind of image of a con director that gives people confidence that the
con will be run in a level-headed and dependable manner. I don't know that
it'd stop me personally, though it does put me off a bit as well. The staff
of most of the furry conventions seems to project overall a very friendly
"Everyone come on out and have a good old time" friendly welcoming attitude
towards just about everyone. As did Confurence in the old "wild" days. Now
it's quite clear that there's a number of people and a number of types of
behavior that Darrel clearly dislikes - and he spends enough time talking
about them in public that it "feels" like Confurence is the con where "some
people are just not welcome here, those filthy scum - oh but don't let that
bother the rest of you, we really are friendly and welcoming even though we
spend half our time grumbling about filthy scum".

I want anything I hear that I tend to associate with a con sound very cheerful,
that makes me feel more eager to go. You simply don't see posts from the
directors of Anthrocon and Further Confusion where they're swearing, angry,
or complaining heavily about problems in the fandom. I think that's a good
move on their parts - those people might get pissed off about stuff too, but
they know it's bad PR to go on about it in public, and they restrain
themselves.

*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*

(Disclaimer: Purrhaps I'd do better with Furcadia if I were more polite on
here too. But maybe we've got too many people already and I should be
more rude and obnoxious to cut usage down. :XD)

(Bonus Disclaimer: Restraining yourself might be good PR in and of itself
if you're trying to attract the bondage crowd.)

Philip M. Cohen

unread,
May 30, 2002, 7:48:17 PM5/30/02
to
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen wrote:

> I also like those Improv workshops[1], although I think they're geared toward
> fursuiters[2] and folks who are a little more extroverted[3] than I am.
>
> [1] I like to watch; not crazy about actually participating.
> [2] I'm not one, I just help them move from place to place sometimes.
> [3] Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Improv sessions and workshops were among my favorite program items at
the last two Anthrocons; I even overcame my introversion enough to
participate a little. I didn't notice any gearing toward fursuiters; in
fact, they seemed to have a rather low fur quotient. Not that there's


anything wrong with that.
--

Always carry a grapefruit, Treesong

Kay Shapero

unread,
May 31, 2002, 5:49:07 PM5/31/02
to
In article <3CF6BA0E...@verizon.net>, tree...@verizon.net
says...

>
> Improv sessions and workshops were among my favorite program items at
> the last two Anthrocons; I even overcame my introversion enough to
> participate a little. I didn't notice any gearing toward fursuiters; in
> fact, they seemed to have a rather low fur quotient. Not that there's
> anything wrong with that.
>

There was an improv session at last ConFurence involving both
fursuiters (on stage) and narration by folks from the audience
(also audience suggestions and whatnot.) Much fun.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages