SCFA: My Final Decision
iani...@foto.infi.net
This was posted to the board on SPR, then cut and pasted...I tried to
change all references to board, etc, but might have missed one or two...
Probably 90% of you are gonna look at me and go *huh*?...sorry if this
bores you or whatever...
Anyways, just saying, I just sent off my mail to ratman requesting that
my page on SCFA (I am reitjenn, or Jennifer Ilena Reiter on there) be
removed
Why? A few reasons:
I've been getting very rude mail lately that my art sucks, and it's not
"real furry art"...interestingly, this only comes from folks who just
"saw (my) work on SCFA"..folks who went through my web site first email
me with nothing but compliments and kindly suggestions.
Makes me wonder about the "clientele" who hang out there lately.....
More importantly, I am doing this out of protest...
When I first applied for a page on SCFA, I read all the documents which
implied that SCFA requires QUALITY CONTROL...and only better artists are
chosen to go on there...
There was a pic up today that was a drawing done on notebook
paper...including the hole in the margin...that kinda pushed me over the
line...
SCFA is not doing what it I felt it implied it would do: I.E. have a
high quality archive of hand picked artists...so I'm pulling my
page...with alla free web sites out there these days, I can support my
own stuff on my own site (http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/7636/
)
Now before you scream, "well, it was free! You should be grateful he
even put the site up!"...yeah..true...but free or not, if you claim
you're gonna do something, you should follow through...and I'm not
trying to force the site to change, I'm electing not to put my artwork
there. I firmly believe, if you are not satisfied, take your business
elsewhere...I did the same thing when I left FurryMUCK...finally got fed
up, and left..*shrug*.
I have found, online, removing yourself, your work, etc...speaks louder
than any complaint...whether it be a mu*, a newsgroup, a web site,
whatever.
Anyways..just thought I'd tell you, and explain why...
-Jennifer Ilena Reiter
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/7636/
Ratman
iani...@foto.infi.net wrote:
>This was posted to the board on SPR, then cut and pasted...I tried to
>change all references to board, etc, but might have missed one or two...
>
>Probably 90% of you are gonna look at me and go *huh*?...sorry if this
>bores you or whatever...
>Anyways, just saying, I just sent off my mail to ratman requesting that
>my page on SCFA (I am reitjenn, or Jennifer Ilena Reiter on there) be
>removed
>Why? A few reasons:
>I've been getting very rude mail lately that my art sucks, and it's not
>"real furry art"...interestingly, this only comes from folks who just
>"saw (my) work on SCFA"..folks who went through my web site first email
>me with nothing but compliments and kindly suggestions.
>
>Makes me wonder about the "clientele" who hang out there lately.....
>
>More importantly, I am doing this out of protest...
>When I first applied for a page on SCFA, I read all the documents which
>implied that SCFA requires QUALITY CONTROL...and only better artists are
>chosen to go on there...
>There was a pic up today that was a drawing done on notebook
>paper...including the hole in the margin...that kinda pushed me over the
>line...
haha. pushed you over the line? Funny, this is the first i've even heard of
this. If you won't even tell me, how am I supposed to just know that you're not
happy? Christ people, why don't you try telling the people that can make a
difference, instead of just whining to each other, and when things don't go the
way you want, quit rather than trying to work them out.
>SCFA is not doing what it I felt it implied it would do: I.E. have a
>high quality archive of hand picked artists...so I'm pulling my
>page...with alla free web sites out there these days, I can support my
>own stuff on my own site (http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/7636/
I think that answers my question. Why fix my site, when you can start your own?
>Now before you scream, "well, it was free! You should be grateful he
>even put the site up!"...yeah..true...but free or not, if you claim
>you're gonna do something, you should follow through...
I never claimed whatever it is you're saying i'm claiming. All the quality
control page claims is that there are rules for people to follow.
> and I'm not trying to force the site to change,
it seems to me like you don't want it to change at all. That might hinder the
progress of your own site.
> I'm electing not to put my artwork
>there. I firmly believe, if you are not satisfied, take your business
>elsewhere...I did the same thing when I left FurryMUCK...finally got fed
>up, and left..*shrug*.
Heh. finally. you imply this is some long running thing. if it is, it's the
first i've heard of it.
>I have found, online, removing yourself, your work, etc...speaks louder
>than any complaint...whether it be a mu*, a newsgroup, a web site,
>whatever.
sorry, doesn't make much of a difference here. i'm not sure what it is you're
trying to accomplish in your "protest". do you even know?
JDupont378
YEAH! *Buster throws oreos and fishsitcks at everyone!*
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS!
More people will see my "Talentless asshole crap"!
Ya know, I saw someone with uncombed hair, it drove me over the edge, I
killed him out of protest. SO THERE!
AHAHHAHAHA!
Ya know, I miss al the annoying people, Lets get Sinder Back here! PROTEST!
Or maybe not!
Its like I set myself on fire and refuesed to let the volenteer firemen
put me out because even though it was a free service, I wanted to be put
out with bubbly warm water instead of cold wet water!
But I guess I should start my own NAzi art page for the BEST ARTIST! None
of this non-photorelistic spooge crap! I just want photographs on my site!
NO! WAIT! I JUST WANT MY ART ON MY PAGE! I am going to start the
EVIL-EMPIRE Art page, it will be open to anyone but I will REFUSE EVERYONE
Because they are not as good as me! WHEEE
Oh yeah, have a nice day.!
Buster "I WILL CONTROLL YOU!" Charlie
Nate Patrin
JDupont378 <jdupo...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970907174...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> YEAH! *Buster throws oreos and fishsitcks at everyone!*
Agh! These are stale!
> DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS!
>
> More people will see my "Talentless asshole crap"!
And society is one step closer to total anarchy. Cool.
> Ya know, I saw someone with uncombed hair, it drove me over the edge, I
> killed him out of protest. SO THERE!
ROTFL! BTW, that notebook paper Jennifer complained about so much? I
thought it was a good pic, at least for a sketch. Good expression. And she
/did/ justify it- mentioned that for some reason little doodles on lined
paper often turned out nicer than finished work. And I know a lot of people
whose hair looks better uncombed than neatened up. Robert Smith, for one.
;o)>
> AHAHHAHAHA!
o/` IIIIIIIII am an an-ti-christ, and IIIIII am an an-ar-chist... er,
sorry.
> Ya know, I miss al the annoying people, Lets get Sinder Back here!
PROTEST!
Yeah! Last time he was here we started a thread, talked about weaponry and
techno music and I got to meet a few cool people.
> Or maybe not!
Uh.
> Its like I set myself on fire and refuesed to let the volenteer firemen
> put me out because even though it was a free service, I wanted to be put
> out with bubbly warm water instead of cold wet water!
Worse yet, people looked at you funny because you weren't a Buddhist monk
and there wasn't a war to protest.
> But I guess I should start my own NAzi art page for the BEST ARTIST! None
> of this non-photorelistic spooge crap! I just want photographs on my
site!
The rat-holmes' anti-spooge policy /is/ a bit on th' mark, seeing as how
the SCFA's not supposed to be a mondo-bosomed Doug Winger jiz-o-rama
archive. I think the 'spooge' pics in question, though, were of 'toons a'la
Fifi from Tiny Toons or whatever. Ohhhh, sure, there ain't a single naughty
bump or a spot of furless flesh, but gosh, they /look/ provocative, right?
(phblt.)
Oh, as for the whole situation that started this thread: I just peeped the
Recent Uploads, and they still had the two pics I uploaded Friday afternoon
(9.5). I'm still waiting to get bumped off. Heh.
> NO! WAIT! I JUST WANT MY ART ON MY PAGE! I am going to start the
> EVIL-EMPIRE Art page, it will be open to anyone but I will REFUSE
EVERYONE
> Because they are not as good as me! WHEEE
That sounds confusing and almost irrelevant, but that does sound a lot like
what some people do, yes.
> Oh yeah, have a nice day.!
But it's against site policy to have a nice day!
> Buster "I WILL CONTROLL YOU!" Charlie
-Nate "Oh crap, he ain't kiddin'- he's got a stopwatch on a chain!" Patrin
JDupont378
In article <01bcbbbe$fc2e3bc0$dbc65ea0@default>, "Nate Patrin"
<patr...@tc.umn.edu> writes:
>> YEAH! *Buster throws oreos and fishsitcks at everyone!*
>
>Agh! These are stale!
>
DAMN! THOSE ARE PROPS! They be plastic! Buster gets messsed up from oreos,
and I hate fish, Go ask vamparto. As for cheese, dont ask. WU TANG, I like
foil-wrapped dead things.
>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS!
>>
>> More people will see my "Talentless asshole crap"!
>
>And society is one step closer to total anarchy. Cool.
>
YEAH! Get The polar woof dood.
>> Ya know, I saw someone with uncombed hair, it drove me over the edge, I
>> killed him out of protest. SO THERE!
>
>ROTFL! BTW, that notebook paper Jennifer complained about so much? I
>thought it was a good pic, at least for a sketch. Good expression. And she
>/did/ justify it- mentioned that for some reason little doodles on lined
>paper often turned out nicer than finished work. And I know a lot of people
>whose hair looks better uncombed than neatened up. Robert Smith, for one.
>;o)>
>
>> AHAHHAHAHA!
>
>o/` IIIIIIIII am an an-ti-christ, and IIIIII am an an-ar-chist... er,
>sorry.
BRET FUNK IS THE ANTICRIST!
Oops, nevermind.
>
>> Ya know, I miss al the annoying people, Lets get Sinder Back here!
>PROTEST!
>
>Yeah! Last time he was here we started a thread, talked about weaponry and
>techno music and I got to meet a few cool people.
>
>> Or maybe not!
>
>Uh.
>
>> Its like I set myself on fire and refuesed to let the volenteer firemen
>> put me out because even though it was a free service, I wanted to be put
>> out with bubbly warm water instead of cold wet water!
>
>Worse yet, people looked at you funny because you weren't a Buddhist monk
>and there wasn't a war to protest.
>
Yeah, too much RAge agINST the Machine.
>> But I guess I should start my own NAzi art page for the BEST ARTIST! None
>> of this non-photorelistic spooge crap! I just want photographs on my
>site!
>
>The rat-holmes' anti-spooge policy /is/ a bit on th' mark, seeing as how
>the SCFA's not supposed to be a mondo-bosomed Doug Winger jiz-o-rama
>archive. I think the 'spooge' pics in question, though, were of 'toons a'la
>Fifi from Tiny Toons or whatever. Ohhhh, sure, there ain't a single naughty
>bump or a spot of furless flesh, but gosh, they /look/ provocative, right?
>(phblt.)
>
>Oh, as for the whole situation that started this thread: I just peeped the
>Recent Uploads, and they still had the two pics I uploaded Friday afternoon
>(9.5). I'm still waiting to get bumped off. Heh.
>
>> NO! WAIT! I JUST WANT MY ART ON MY PAGE! I am going to start the
>> EVIL-EMPIRE Art page, it will be open to anyone but I will REFUSE
>EVERYONE
>> Because they are not as good as me! WHEEE
>
>That sounds confusing and almost irrelevant, but that does sound a lot like
>what some people do, yes.
>
Yeah, I was at a story archive wilth the BEST FURRY STORIES ON THE NET!
and they were only stories written by the person who ran the page.
>> Oh yeah, have a nice day.!
>
>But it's against site policy to have a nice day!
>
Darn. I forgot. Better shave my tail.
>> Buster "I WILL CONTROLL YOU!" Charlie
>
>-Nate "Oh crap, he ain't kiddin'- he's got a stopwatch on a chain!" Patrin
>
>
choking on a bucket of musle fuel
landlocked and solar powered
shredding on satan's guitar
in the shadow of clinch mountain
ghetto blastin whiskey cans
hairgel burrittos
watered down demon fuzz
digitally remastered toothpick
all around the watertank
in the pines
jesco pounding his heels on a plank
nimrod walking on his hands
heino ridin the bloody gates
pulsing electrified saliva
new wave kid control
viking banjo hits of the '70's
milking the k-tel
wimping out lk never again
lk a trans am eagle
bargain hunting smurf finger
(pls fax this)
Naros Soulfox
Before anyone starts saying "hey you should mail this at rat not post it
here..."and all that
I want other newbie's or at least newbie artist (like me) to know this
too...
Question for you Kilo (or should i call you ratman?)
Say I have some furry pictures...rather bad ones (in some eyes) but I'm
proud of em and i want to show them on your site... would i be able to get
some space there?
Or would they be rejected for 'not being good enough' ...I'm not implying
anything but with all the rumors...
Naros -soon to be (SCFA?) artist..- SoulFox
David Gonterman
On Sat, 06 Sep 1997 10:09:36 -0700, iani...@foto.infi.net wrote:
>Probably 90% of you are gonna look at me and go *huh*?...sorry if this
>bores you or whatever...
>Anyways, just saying, I just sent off my mail to ratman requesting that
>my page on SCFA (I am reitjenn, or Jennifer Ilena Reiter on there) be
>removed
>Why? A few reasons:
>I've been getting very rude mail lately that my art sucks, and it's not
>"real furry art"...interestingly, this only comes from folks who just
>"saw (my) work on SCFA"..folks who went through my web site first email
>me with nothing but compliments and kindly suggestions.
I have to aggree with this person, since I too have been dissed this
badly by RatMan, (Of course, this is related to Rat.Org's Sonic Ban
and the removal of it's Sonic Archive, which I have taken up on my own
server. It is attitude like this that makes such a server get abused,
and I should know all about attitude, since I tend to have one myself
when provoked.
David Gonterman-----...@aol.com-----------------
Furry Code v1.2
FcFRMf1dfmw (Jonathan Brisby <Rangers of NIMH,
Sailor Moon USA,
J_Brisby on Furtoonia,
JBrisby on IRC>)
/CFcm2admsw (David Kintobor <Blood and Metal,
Davey on Redwood>)
<as of the time of this posting>
C-DH+++M+P+R--T++wZ+Sm+
RLAaCn++++d++e++f+h-iwf++p*sm
AOL+++Sonic+Sailor Moon+++
FoxFire Studios--------http://users.aol.com/dgonterman-----
Ratman
"Naros Soulfox" <s-g...@cybercomm.nl> wrote:
I dont see what the big secret is.
If you applied, and you're art wasn't really that good, I wouldn't let you have
space. Or if your art looked really sonicy, i'm getting strict against that too,
mostly to drive out the immature kid types that overran the site some months
back.
This is not to say you should give up and stop drawing. I'd just rather not have
the stuff on my site. There are several other archives, try one of those.
Or keep practicing till you are good. And show friends and stuff.
iani...@foto.infi.net
Ratman wrote:
<SNIP>
> Heh. finally. you imply this is some long running thing. if it is, it's the
> first i've heard of it.
>
That's not true...You and I had extensive E-Mail conversations on this
topic...and to anyone who doesn't believe me, I'd be perfectly happy to
mail you all the correspondence...
Ratman
dgo...@spiff.net (David Gonterman) wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Sep 1997 10:09:36 -0700, iani...@foto.infi.net wrote:
>
>>Probably 90% of you are gonna look at me and go *huh*?...sorry if this
>>bores you or whatever...
>>Anyways, just saying, I just sent off my mail to ratman requesting that
>>my page on SCFA (I am reitjenn, or Jennifer Ilena Reiter on there) be
>>removed
>>Why? A few reasons:
>>I've been getting very rude mail lately that my art sucks, and it's not
>>"real furry art"...interestingly, this only comes from folks who just
>>"saw (my) work on SCFA"..folks who went through my web site first email
>>me with nothing but compliments and kindly suggestions.
>
>I have to aggree with this person, since I too have been dissed this
>badly by RatMan, (Of course, this is related to Rat.Org's Sonic Ban
>and the removal of it's Sonic Archive, which I have taken up on my own
>server. It is attitude like this that makes such a server get abused,
>and I should know all about attitude, since I tend to have one myself
>when provoked.
Fine, I guess i have to make a twits page about you now. Rather than post it to
a newsgroup and annoy those who don't care to follow gossip and whatnot, I'll
just document it all on a web page.
Enjoy.
http://rat.org/twits/gonterman.html
Tobias Koehler
On Sun, 7 Sep 1997 23:06:50 +0200, Naros Soulfox
(s-g...@cybercomm.nl) wrote in alt.fan.furry:
> Say I have some furry pictures...rather bad ones (in some eyes) but I'm
> proud of em and i want to show them on your site... would i be able to get
> some space there?
> Or would they be rejected for 'not being good enough' ...I'm not implying
> anything but with all the rumors...
If you are a sensitive person, and can predict that a reject
would have a negative impact on your creativity, choose a non-
censorship server (such as furry.isc-br.com) instead. And if you
are rejected, keep in mind that rat's opinion is not an universal
indicator of art quality. Your time is too precious to waste it
with self-doubt when you are told your art is worthless. Keep in
mind that the important thing is the fun of creation, not being
together with the famous.... which you can, by the way, also be
on other servers. :)
unci
--
tobias benjamin koehler * * * * ,-/o"O`--.._ * _/(_ *
* * * * * * _,-o'.|o 0 'O o O`o--'. e\
dresden, europe * (`o-..___..--''o:,-' )o /._" O "o 0 o : ._>
* * ``--o___o..o.'' * :'.O\_ ```--.\o .' `--
un...@tigerden.com * * * `-`.,) * \`.o`._ *
t...@rcs.urz.tu-dresden.de * * * fL `-`-.,)
Ratman
iani...@foto.infi.net wrote:
>Ratman wrote:
>
><SNIP>
>> Heh. finally. you imply this is some long running thing. if it is, it's the
>> first i've heard of it.
>>
>
>That's not true...You and I had extensive E-Mail conversations on this
>topic...and to anyone who doesn't believe me, I'd be perfectly happy to
>mail you all the correspondence...
You have no idea how much email i get a day.
I remember nothing from you regarding "this is something that's bothering me,
and i'm going to quit the archive if it doesn't get resolved". I'd hope i would
remember something like that. I remember some idle chatter about it.
Nothing even slightly resembling that. If you did ever imply that, I must have
missed it. But you quit the SCFA, and therefore have no say on it's policy
towards the artists as far as i'm concerned. If you had wanted to hang on and
try to work it out, that would be one thing, we could have tried to turn things
around, but you quit, so the hell with ya.
Tobias Koehler
> > Say I have some furry pictures...rather bad ones (in some eyes) but I'm
> > proud of em and i want to show them on your site... would i be able to get
> > some space there?
and I replied:
> If you are a sensitive person, and can predict that a reject
> would have a negative impact on your creativity, choose a non-
> censorship server (such as furry.isc-br.com) instead.
and I actually forgot to suggest the obvious (as you're an
European artist): Upload your art to ftp.furry.ctrl-c.liu.se -
it is a nice, small server with the only rules:
| Nothing here is published without consent to our use and spreading of
| the same. The only other rule applying is that we do not accept
| pornographic material including children. Otherwise, anything furry
| goes. /the administration
Put it in furry/images/uploads and ask sn...@ctrl-c.liu.se to
install you a directory. :) Good luck!
(A simple HTML interface for that server exists at
http://www.furry.ctrl-c.liu.se/ - a new, improved one, on
www.furry.de is under construction.)
Nate Patrin
Lisa Jennings <Allthis@SPAM_is_for_sandwiches.com> wrote:
>
> Hey, Ratman... this is starting to sound like the "I hate Spam" sites.
> One of them (I don't remember the URL) keeps a record of obnoxious
> people who threaten him because he's denouncing their spam and
> email-pyramid schemes.
Ohhhh yeah! Is that the Make Money Fast Hall of Humiliation at
http://www.clark.net/pub/rolf/mmf/ ? Heehee.
Anyways, yeah, the twits page on rat is pretty freakish. Almost
disturbing... shit, the kindsa things website admins hafta go through, huh?
-Nate "Remind me not to get on Kilo's bad side" Patrin
Naros Soulfox
Ratman wrote in article <
>>Say I have some furry pictures...rather bad ones (in some eyes) but I'm
>>proud of em and i want to show them on your site... would i be able to
get
>>some space there?
Well my pics arent good JET and i dont want to show em JET ill only show em
when they ARE good,,,,but it was a hypothetical question "say...."
>I dont see what the big secret is.
did i miss a secret?
>If you applied, and you're art wasn't really that good, I wouldn't let you
have
>space. Or if your art looked really sonicy, i'm getting strict against
that too,
>mostly to drive out the immature kid types that overran the site some
months
>back.
And any one who draws 'sonicy art' shouldend only be banned from your site
but from the entire net if not WORLD!!!!! <oops how much of that was out
loud?>
>This is not to say you should give up and stop drawing. I'd just rather
not have
>the stuff on my site. There are several other archives, try one of those.
>Or keep practicing till you are good. And show friends and stuff.
Like i said im to ashamed of my art as it is...i have a few pics on my
site....after some of my friends convinced me they liked it.....
>
Naros -just a question from a confused fur- SoulFox
iani...@foto.infi.net
Ratman wrote:
>
> iani...@foto.infi.net wrote:
>
> >Ratman wrote:
> >
> ><SNIP>
> >> Heh. finally. you imply this is some long running thing. if it is, it's the
> >> first i've heard of it.
> >>
> >
> >That's not true...You and I had extensive E-Mail conversations on this
> >topic...and to anyone who doesn't believe me, I'd be perfectly happy to
> >mail you all the correspondence...
>
> You have no idea how much email i get a day.
> I remember nothing from you regarding "this is something that's bothering me,
> and i'm going to quit the archive if it doesn't get resolved".
I didn't think threats would be received very well....considering the
conversation was going rather amiably....sides that's not my style...
I only leave a place/muck/site whatever if I feel like I'm talking, and
no one's listening..apparently I did the right thing then..cause you
weren't paying attention....You're not the only one who gets a lot of
email y'know...
I'd hope i would
> remember something like that. I remember some idle chatter about it.
> Nothing even slightly resembling that. If you did ever imply that, I must have
> missed it.
Apparently so.
But you quit the SCFA, and therefore have no say on it's policy
> towards the artists as far as i'm concerned.
I never did have any "say"...or you woulda fixed it after the first, or
second time I talked to you on the subject...nor does anyone except for
the people running the site...I can give my opinion though
*shrug*...frankly, I was gonna drop the subject though when I
left...I've given SCFA up as a lost cause....am re-activating my page on
YiffCo though...
If you had wanted to hang on and
> try to work it out, that would be one thing, we could have tried to turn things around, but you quit, so the hell with ya.
But basically, as long as I wasn't threatening to leave, you didn't care
what I said...
This is kinda like what happened when I left FurryMUCK..the wizzes
treated me like dirt, till I put in my @toad requests...then I got all
this lovey dovey mail from a bunch of them...oh please..
Actions will always speak louder than words...
*shrug*..I quit cause you didn't wanna work it out..you were too afraid
of what folks would say to you....you didn't want to be painted as a bad
guy...at least that's what you told me in your mails..*shrugs again*...
If I had seen ONE step towards enforcing quality on SCFA (other than
the sonic thing...which I've thought over, and am starting to wonder
about the ethical implications of that..but hey, it's your site) I
wouldn't have quit...though it doesn't seem like you're that broken up
over me leaving anyways...you didn't even remember my conversations with
you...and now you're being rude ....
Ah well..as some furs noted, I don't do "real" furry art anyways...
But still taking commissions if you're sick of the toon style, overly
buxom, photoshop coloured stuff...I also do regular artwork btw...for
those vampires, demons, and other "non typical furry" types out there...
Lisa Jennings
Nate Patrin wrote:
>
> Lisa Jennings <Allthis@SPAM_is_for_sandwiches.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hey, Ratman... this is starting to sound like the "I hate Spam" sites.
> > One of them (I don't remember the URL) keeps a record of obnoxious
> > people who threaten him because he's denouncing their spam and
> > email-pyramid schemes.
>
> Ohhhh yeah! Is that the Make Money Fast Hall of Humiliation at
> http://www.clark.net/pub/rolf/mmf/ ? Heehee.
Yup! That's the one! He's _very_ thorough about his email trail...
> Anyways, yeah, the twits page on rat is pretty freakish. Almost
> disturbing... shit, the kindsa things website admins hafta go through, huh?
*sigh* Yes, it's indeed rather sad. Maybe some of the SCFA artists who
are on Ratman's side should draw him something as a symbol of support?
ermine
home email: khr...@InOrbit.com
Dr. Skorzy MacFarlaighn
Lisa Jennings wrote:
>
> Ratman wrote:
> >
> > Fine, I guess i have to make a twits page about you now. Rather than post it to
> > a newsgroup and annoy those who don't care to follow gossip and whatnot, I'll
> > just document it all on a web page.
> > Enjoy.
> >
> > http://rat.org/twits/gonterman.html
Well..
I'm not a fan of a "twits" page by any means, as they're usually
slanderous and one sided, BUT... seeing how Mr. Gonterman has sent
abusive emails to Ratman, who is providing a FREE service to artists, I
can understand Ratman's position on this.
It is very frustrating to deal with immature people, I think Ratman is
defending himself quite fine by letting the facts speak for themselves
without launching a smear campaign of his own.
>
> *giggle!!!*
I'd laugh too, but I like the SCFA and I think Ratman has shown an
inordinate amount of patience in dealing with the BS he's been forced to
swallow on this...
More patience than I ever gave him credit for in the past...
Also, I think all you Sonicphiles that keep insisting the SCFA is
censoring you etc...well, grow up! The SCFA isn't your personal
playground.
OK Micole.. *snicker*... I *can* see the humor in this... stupid,
immature people *are* entertaining in their own right.. *chuckle*.
> Hey, Ratman... this is starting to sound like the "I hate Spam" sites.
> One of them (I don't remember the URL) keeps a record of obnoxious
> people who threaten him because he's denouncing their spam and
> email-pyramid schemes.
*nods* Yeah...
I don't understand this at all. Ratman provides a free service, and
people diss on him because he's got rules for the site. *shakes head*..
This is kind of like living rent-free in a friend's house, then bitching
at him because he moves some furniture around...
Your options?
1. Negotiate in a civil manner...
2. Move out.
Seems pretty simple to me.
> Keep up the good work! :3
Aye! I second that!
-Skorzy
--
J. Scott Rogers (Dr. Skorzy MacFarlaighn / rat-Biorg physician)
UMASS Medical Center
Program in Molecular Medicine ** sko...@ma.ultranet.com **
Worcester, Massachusetts ** jeff....@ummed.edu **
--
"The Biorg Universe" (Anthropomorphic Fiction)
http://www.tiac.net/users/bfoxxe/tbu-contents.shtml
"The Home for Tenured Graduate Students" (Exercise in self-indulgence)
http://www.ummed.edu/pub/j/jrogers/
-- "Confusion will be my epitaph."
-- Robert Fripp, King Crimson
iani...@foto.infi.net
Lisa Jennings wrote:
>
> Gordon McVey wrote:
> >
> > Lisa Jennings ran around alt.fan.furry honking everyone's nose ang giggling madly about Re: SCFA: My Final Decision
>
> > > *sigh* Yes, it's indeed rather sad. Maybe some of the SCFA artists who
> > > are on Ratman's side should draw him something as a symbol of support?
> >
>
> I agree wholeheartedly... but as it is apparent that it's hard for poor
> Ratman to find out if any of the artists on his site _appreciate_ all
> he's done (aside from the comments here on AFF), it would be nice for
> the artists to demonstrate it in their own fashion... with art. :3
>
> ermine
Don't bother..hey, I have a file of stuff I sent Ratman since May ...all
pretty darn supportive...and he forgot I sent them...He probably won't
even notice *shrug*...
*hands Lisa a towel to rub the brown junk off her nose*..
-Jennifer Ilena Reiter
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/7636/
(not taking commissions at this time, cause I'm kinda bogged down...)
Gordon McVey
Lisa Jennings ran around alt.fan.furry honking everyone's nose ang giggling madly about Re: SCFA: My Final Decision
> > Anyways, yeah, the twits page on rat is pretty freakish. Almost
> > disturbing... shit, the kindsa things website admins hafta go through, huh?
>
> *sigh* Yes, it's indeed rather sad. Maybe some of the SCFA artists who
> are on Ratman's side should draw him something as a symbol of support?
Perhaps. But it really shouldn't be necessary to *pick* sides.
--
/|_ | * * * Check out my homepage for commission information * * * |
/ O\__ | http://www.zen.co.uk/home/page/g.mcvey/ Fenn online |
\ ___/ | http://rat.org/pub/furry/mcveygor/ g.m...@zen.co.uk |
/ | ftp://furry.isc-br.com/pub/Images/Gordon-McCey/ 2:250/355.23 |
William Earl Haskell
iani...@foto.infi.net wrote:
snip
>
> *hands Lisa a towel to rub the brown junk off her nose*..
>
Hold it, Chickaboom, you're out of line with this.
I've never seen any of your stuff, at SCFA or anyplace else, never even
*heard* of you before, and my life sure as hell isn't blighted by that
fact. It's this guys site, he's keeping it up & running on his own dime,
and that means he determines what gets posted. If you don't like it,
there's plenty of other places that aren't so particular.
> -Jennifer Ilena Reiter
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/7636/
> (not taking commissions at this time, cause I'm kinda bogged down...)
...with both your thumbs up yer ass, I bet you are. Sheesh.
Lisa Jennings
Gordon McVey wrote:
>
> Lisa Jennings ran around alt.fan.furry honking everyone's nose ang giggling madly about Re: SCFA: My Final Decision
> > *sigh* Yes, it's indeed rather sad. Maybe some of the SCFA artists who
> > are on Ratman's side should draw him something as a symbol of support?
>
> Perhaps. But it really shouldn't be necessary to *pick* sides.
I agree wholeheartedly... but as it is apparent that it's hard for poor
JDupont378
>
>Don't bother..hey, I have a file of stuff I sent Ratman since May ...all
>pretty darn supportive...and he forgot I sent them...He probably won't
>even notice *shrug*...
>
>*hands Lisa a towel to rub the brown junk off her nose*..
>
Aw man, That's kinda fucked up! MAN! THAT'S FUCKING COLD! YEAH!
Lets think this over.
1) You are pissed because Kilo and the rest of the newsgroup did now bow
down to you.
2) You are pissed because Kilo Gets countless messages, most of them are
not positive, and since you have a talent for pissing people off and
twisting the truth to fit your needs, he might have a very good reason for
not dwelling on your mail.
3) You think the Bomb digity Ermine is a shit-sniffing-ass-kisser because
she is trying to support someone who gets enough crap from people like you
to fill a football stadium.
4) Rat spends $$$ to host our art, and everybody gives a shit because he
wants to run HIS computer the way HE wants to. Think about that, HIS
computer, not yours, HIS. He is a very nice person to share HIS computer
will us. I think he is once of the nicer people I know, he may scare me,
but he is NOT doing this for his personal gain, he would probally be much
happier if he didn't have to run around and babysit a bunch of immature
artist who thing the are "Da Bomb."
5) While some of us will say "Oh sure, I just love rat" when asked,. do we
really apriciate what he has done for us? I am afraid I don't thank rat as
much as I should. But when I say, thank rat, I do not mean SPAMing him with
E-mail, but uploading my best and standing up for him when some pyro comes
to a newsgroup and starts bashing him.
6) Its not ass kissing, its respect for your friends. I don't know if Kilo
thinks that I am a friend or not, but I owe a lot to him. So there, I may
be an ass-kissing no-talent mindless twit who can't draw for his life. But
for some strange reason I don't like when some little "LOOK AT ME, I GOT
SO MANY FRIENDS THAT THEY ALL WANT ME TO DRAW COMMISSIONS FOR THEM" popping
out of the shit-pile and insulting people because they have diffrent opinions.
7) Yes I am an asshole and I am taking this personally, and yes I am
overreacting, YES I AM INSANE! But that doesn't mean I have to sit here
and Take it.
8)Or maybe not.
Buster "Toasty" Charlie
Ratman
iani...@foto.infi.net wrote:
>> > Perhaps. But it really shouldn't be necessary to *pick* sides.
>>
>> I agree wholeheartedly... but as it is apparent that it's hard for poor
>> Ratman to find out if any of the artists on his site _appreciate_ all
>> he's done (aside from the comments here on AFF), it would be nice for
>> the artists to demonstrate it in their own fashion... with art. :3
>>
>> ermine
>
>Don't bother..hey, I have a file of stuff I sent Ratman since May ...all
>pretty darn supportive...and he forgot I sent them...He probably won't
>even notice *shrug*...
>
>*hands Lisa a towel to rub the brown junk off her nose*..
I'm not giving any more attention to this. It was fun for awhile, but this has
gotten too pathetic, even for me.
Lisa Jennings
iani...@foto.infi.net wrote:
> *hands Lisa a towel to rub the brown junk off her nose*..
I will respond to this in email only. Goodnight.
The Demon Nyseth
David Gonterman wrote:
>
> On Sun, 07 Sep 1997 23:04:28 GMT, ra...@rat.org (Ratman) wrote:
>
> >"Naros Soulfox" <s-g...@cybercomm.nl> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Before anyone starts saying "hey you should mail this at rat not post it
> >>here..."and all that
> >>I want other newbie's or at least newbie artist (like me) to know this
> >>too...
> >>
> >>Question for you Kilo (or should i call you ratman?)
> >>proud of em and i want to show them on your site... would i be able to get
> >>some space there?
> >>anything but with all the rumors...
> >
> >space. Or if your art looked really sonicy, i'm getting strict against that too,
> >mostly to drive out the immature kid types that overran the site some months
> >back.
> >
> >the stuff on my site. There are several other archives, try one of those.
> >Or keep practicing till you are good. And show friends and stuff.
>
> around this Newsgroup and shout "Into the Gas Chambers, you
> trash-brawing sorry excuse for human flesh!!"
>
> Does what Ratman said up there sound like Censorship? And I'm not
> talking atttempts to keep kids away from smut--I'M TALKING OUT AND OUT
> CENSORSHIP!!!
>
> And yo supported the Blue Ribbon Campaign. You disgust me to no end,
> you son of a bitch.
>
> Let's Mass Flame this Bastard!
Congradulations, you've just won a trip to the Killfile!
<PLONK>
Nate Patrin
JDupont378 <jdupo...@aol.com> wrote in article
> In article <3415E5...@foto.infi.net>, iani...@foto.infi.net sneered:
> >*hands Lisa a towel to rub the brown junk off her nose*..
> >
>
> Aw man, That's kinda fucked up! MAN! THAT'S FUCKING COLD! YEAH!
It took me a bit to realize what that 'brown junk' was... geagh!
> Lets think this over.
> 1) You are pissed because Kilo and the rest of the newsgroup did now bow
> down to you.
To correct spelling error which may confuse some people (who have the IQ of
a rutabaga): Busta Chaz meant "did _not_ bow down". Maybe she's just
spastic cause my "No Fun" post (which I admit was pretty bitchy) and a lot
of other "complaint posts" got more positive support than her own. (But
then, maybe my post and others' had more of that 'logic' stuff involved.)
> 2) You are pissed because Kilo Gets countless messages, most of them are
> not positive, and since you have a talent for pissing people off and
> twisting the truth to fit your needs, he might have a very good reason
for
> not dwelling on your mail.
Maybe he wrote off the "I need the Recent Uploads page to keep me in
commissions so I can pay for college unlike a certain goatee-sporting 'yote
who gets their mummy and dadsie to pay for everything so he can buy
records"-style rantings as those of a somewhat imbalanced individual. (Oh,
and my parents pay for half my tuition. I pay for the other half- which
sucks up practically my entire paycheck. And if I didn't still live with my
parents I'd be out on the f***ing street in a Kenmore box 'cause I get paid
six bucks an hour eighteen hours a week, thank you very much.)
> 3) You think the Bomb digity Ermine is a shit-sniffing-ass-kisser because
> she is trying to support someone who gets enough crap from people like
you
> to fill a football stadium.
Heh. She isn't even on his site! What'd she have to gain by "ass-kissing"
him, anyways?
> 4) Rat spends $$$ to host our art, and everybody gives a shit because he
> wants to run HIS computer the way HE wants to. Think about that, HIS
> computer, not yours, HIS. He is a very nice person to share HIS computer
> will us. I think he is once of the nicer people I know, he may scare me,
> but he is NOT doing this for his personal gain, he would probally be much
> happier if he didn't have to run around and babysit a bunch of immature
> artist who thing the are "Da Bomb."
I was one of the first twenty artists to get a page on the SCFA. Since then
I've seen several artists come and go, kicking themselves off for reasons
ranging from "Ratman is a vindictive, Sonic-hating SS Nazi Gestapo fascist"
to "This site is full of too much common rabble that keeps obscuring my own
stuff". Some- no, a /lot/ of artists have been kicked off for being
not-up-to-par, while a lot of the ones who started out with some incredibly
mediocre stuff have turned out to do some pretty good stuff. (Just look at
Buster.) Complaining about your art not appearing in the SCFA is like
whining about how your ten-page interview with Ted Nugent didn't appear in
"Vibe". There's such a thing as "editorial policy".
> 5) While some of us will say "Oh sure, I just love rat" when asked,. do
we
> really apriciate what he has done for us? I am afraid I don't thank rat
as
> much as I should. But when I say, thank rat, I do not mean SPAMing him
with
> E-mail, but uploading my best and standing up for him when some pyro
comes
> to a newsgroup and starts bashing him.
Hey, he's the one who helped me get my stuff out to a wider audience in the
first place- not Avatar, which is currently MIA and has the worst directory
organization.
> 6) Its not ass kissing, its respect for your friends. I don't know if
Kilo
> thinks that I am a friend or not, but I owe a lot to him. So there, I may
> be an ass-kissing no-talent mindless twit who can't draw for his life.
But
> for some strange reason I don't like when some little "LOOK AT ME, I GOT
> SO MANY FRIENDS THAT THEY ALL WANT ME TO DRAW COMMISSIONS FOR THEM"
popping
> out of the shit-pile and insulting people because they have diffrent
opinions.
It's called elitism, and it hounds the hell out of any furry artist who's
less than perfect at their craft.
> 7) Yes I am an asshole and I am taking this personally, and yes I am
> overreacting, YES I AM INSANE!
Oh, and Buster's not a college grad yet, so his opinion's invalid. ;o)>
>But that doesn't mean I have to sit here
> and Take it.
>
> 8)Or maybe not.
Huh?
> Buster "Toasty" Charlie
> >-Jennifer Ilena Reiter
> >http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/7636/
> >(not taking commissions at this time, cause I'm kinda bogged down...)
I hope it's with repairing her webpage. It hurts my eyes and the embedded
MIDI almost crashed my browser.
-Nate "Not taking bullshit at this time, cause I'm kinda bogged down" Patrin
iani...@foto.infi.net
JDupont378 wrote:
> Stuff...
Waitaminute...isn't this the same guy who said that he wanted the whole
flame thing with me to end?
Nice...you can share the hypocrite's award with MR. Haskell *smirk*..
Lisa Jennings
Ratman wrote:
>
> dgo...@spiff.net (David Gonterman) wrote:
> >I didn't quit, Asshole! You threw me out, as you throw out every
> >other person you think sucks.
>
> No, you quit. I have the whole email conversation documented on
> http://rat.org/twits/gonterman.html for everyone to see.
> All you can do is try to deny it.
>
> >We have all the right in the world to Mail-Bomb your ass!!!
>
> :)
> I hope this puts to rest any question in anyone's mind as to what
> kind of person you are.
> I'm not going to respond to any more of your posts, and I suggest
> others do the same.
Have you considered sending mail to AOL regarding his email abuses? I
believe mail-bombs fall into the same Abuse catagory that spam does...
ermine
iani...@foto.infi.net
Nate Patrin wrote:
>
> Stuff
It's pretty funny..before I ever posted on A.F.F, I was talking to some
folks on SPR...see, the original post I put up, I also put on
SPR...there the folks in general agreed with me, *shrug*
But this isn't about who's right or wrong...My attitude is: I'm entitled
to an opinion..so are you...I'm entitled to POST that opinion..so are
you...
Personally, I try not to let debates get personal...
Anyways...probably should have listened to what folks who had been on
AFF and never came back said....I must quote (to some extent, I didn't
log it, but it stuck in my mind pretty well) what was said to me about
A.F.F.
"Don't waste your time, Nai. They are all just fighting, or talking
about useless topics there"
"AFF is a small clique (I must agree with this, it's the same folks
posting over and over again) of snobs who will never allow a new person
to start posting, without flaming them (note, not the post, THEM..the
POST-ER)"
"I don't post to AFF anymore. They are just overreactionary snobs"
(yes, I heard the word snobs twice)
"It's fanboy central"
Sheesh...next time I'll know to listen to my friends :)
Anyways..if you gotta say something to me, email me...I won't be coming
back here *shrug*...Post what you want, but you won't get any
satisfaction if you think it'll hurt me, cause I won't even see it...
And I've made worse enemies than this, and survived ;)...a few more
never hurt me...you can talk on your little newsgroup all you
want..personally, I think the average attitude here is downright
pathetic...
No, I didn't expect folks to totally go for my original post..it was
inflamatory..I was angry...I didn't expect folks to agree with me...
I DID hope the thing would get discussed...and maybe even a solution
would come about...but hey..that would mean I was talking to mature
adults...*LOL*....
Here's something at the level of most folks around here :
"sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me!!"
FAREWELL losers!!!!!!
-Jennifer Ilena Reiter
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/7636/
please send all flames to iani...@foto.infi.net...I could use a good
laugh :)
FINISHING STUFF
> I hope it's with repairing her webpage. It hurts my eyes and the embedded
> MIDI almost crashed my browser.
Hey..twit..a midi can't crash a browser...And I spent a large part of
the weekend on that page..never had a problem...and you don't HAVE to
activate the music...it's autostart false...however, the site IS
graphics intensive..maybe you need more RAM?
>
> -Nate "Not taking bullshit at this time, cause I'm kinda bogged down" Patrin
I know with what, too ;) *ROTFL!!!
Alan Mackey
David Gonterman wrote:
> My God, Ratman, why don't you dress up as an SS uniform, Goose step
> around this Newsgroup and shout "Into the Gas Chambers, you
> trash-brawing sorry excuse for human flesh!!"
>
> Does what Ratman said up there sound like Censorship? And I'm not
> talking atttempts to keep kids away from smut--I'M TALKING OUT AND OUT
> CENSORSHIP!!!
>
> And yo supported the Blue Ribbon Campaign. You disgust me to no end,
> you son of a bitch.
>
> Let's Mass Flame this Bastard!
Oh, my virgin ears. At least I was warned about your ever so strong
language.
David, will you PLEASE shut up? Only one person (Jennifer) seems to
agree with anything you're saying. No one else wants to hear you whine.
No one else is interested about what you have to say about Rat and his
site.
I've been lurking on these SCFA-bashing threads, and I can't just sit
idly and watch you little runts take potshots at my friend anymore. If
you still don't get it, let me spell it out for you: The way you are
acting is an embarassment to the whole Furry community.
Go to you room.
Stay there.
Cry.
Maskwa
David Gonterman wrote:
[snippage]
> Does what Ratman said up there sound like Censorship? And I'm not
> talking atttempts to keep kids away from smut--I'M TALKING OUT AND OUT
> CENSORSHIP!!!
Hey, clueless, you're not being denied the right to publish your work.
You're just being refused the priviledge of using someone's private (as
in NOT PUBLIC) server. His machine, his rules, arbitrary or not (matter
of opinion).
Mailbombing from aol WILL get your account terminated.
BTW, here's your sign. Grow up. HTH. HAND.
(what I wouldn't give to be the one with the privelidge of doing the
<clickety-click> on this git's account)
-- kaskitewaw maskwa -- Blakbehr -- Andrew Steppan -- DijitlToiz
-- Address Mangled. If you can't fix it, I don't want to talk to you.
-- "It's never too late to have a happy childhood!" - Cutter John
-- http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/~asteppan/
JDupont378
My favorate thing about this guy? His major lack of logic. He calls Kilo a
NAZI! yet in the same mail message, he called him a COMMUNIST! Know anyone
who knows anything about what the relationship between the comunist and
Nazi's are, they will know what kind of person we are dealing with.
Dan Poore
Disengage Lurk Mode, Stand by with the disruptors.
David Gonterman wrote:
> My God, Ratman, why don't you dress up as an SS uniform, Goose step
> around this Newsgroup and shout "Into the Gas Chambers, you
> trash-brawing sorry excuse for human flesh!!"
**BZZZZTTT** Congratulations, you just invoked Godwin's Law. YOU LOSE.
> Does what Ratman said up there sound like Censorship? And I'm not
> talking atttempts to keep kids away from smut--I'M TALKING OUT AND OUT
> CENSORSHIP!!!
>
> And yo supported the Blue Ribbon Campaign. You disgust me to no end,
> you son of a bitch.
Did the thought ever pass what is loosely refered to as your mind that
Ratman
doesn't have to give anyone else a presence on his sight? HE IS RUNNING
A
**PRIVATE** SERVICE!! IT IS HIS RIGHT TO RUN **HIS** SITE, NOT YOURS,
AS HE
SEES FIT. If you don't like his service, fine. There are PLENTY of
other
places at which you can get a site, both furry and "mundane". Geocities
ring
a bell?
> Let's Mass Flame this Bastard!
"This bastard" meaning you, Mr. Gonterman? While the thought is
tempting,
I won't stoop to your level. I have far better things to do than listen
to your small-minded (if any mind at all) drivel. Oh, as for the
Language... "Vulgarity is the surest sign of a weak mind" -HostMarcia,
former host of the AOL chat room From The Right.
HAND, sir.
Target twit and fire all disruptor banks.
**ZZZTTTTTTT**
Re-engage Lurk Mode.
CyberTiger ^..^
CyberTigr on FurryMUCK
--
___ ___ ____ @ ix.netcom.com Sorry for the
| \ /\ |\ | |\ | | | |__ hassle this causes, but I can't
| | /__\ | \ | | \ | |__| \ afford waiting on a 9600 modem
|__/ / \ | \| | \| | ___/ to get spam/UCE from my server.
iani...@foto.infi.net
William Earl Haskell wrote:
>
> iani...@foto.infi.net wrote:
> snip
> >
> > *hands Lisa a towel to rub the brown junk off her nose*..
> >
>
Oh relax.....
>
> I've never seen any of your stuff, at SCFA or anyplace else, never even
> *heard* of you before,
*yawn*..and I haven't heard of you either *shrug*.
and my life sure as hell isn't blighted by that
> fact.
How do you know? You don't even know me...
It's this guys site, he's keeping it up & running on his own dime,
> and that means he determines what gets posted. If you don't like it,
> there's plenty of other places that aren't so particular.
>
Yeah...I WITHDREW my stuff from his site cause I didn't like it..and I
HAVE my own web site...or didn't you read the thread?
This wasn't about ratman's site..it was about Ms. Jennings' attempt to
make this into a "war" with "sides"..and generally cause more and more
hate..*shrug*.
>
> ...with both your thumbs up yer ass, I bet you are. Sheesh.
Oh..and THIS isn't out of line? *hands you the hypocrite of the day
award*....
-Jennifer Ilena Reiter
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/7636/
Check out my new web rings and music I've added!!!!!
David Gonterman
On Sun, 07 Sep 1997 23:04:28 GMT, ra...@rat.org (Ratman) wrote:
>"Naros Soulfox" <s-g...@cybercomm.nl> wrote:
>
>>
>>Before anyone starts saying "hey you should mail this at rat not post it
>>here..."and all that
>>I want other newbie's or at least newbie artist (like me) to know this
>>too...
>>
>>Question for you Kilo (or should i call you ratman?)
>>Say I have some furry pictures...rather bad ones (in some eyes) but I'm
>>proud of em and i want to show them on your site... would i be able to get
>>some space there?
>>Or would they be rejected for 'not being good enough' ...I'm not implying
>>anything but with all the rumors...
>
>I dont see what the big secret is.
>If you applied, and you're art wasn't really that good, I wouldn't let you have
>space. Or if your art looked really sonicy, i'm getting strict against that too,
>mostly to drive out the immature kid types that overran the site some months
>back.
>
>This is not to say you should give up and stop drawing. I'd just rather not have
>the stuff on my site. There are several other archives, try one of those.
>Or keep practicing till you are good. And show friends and stuff.
My God, Ratman, why don't you dress up as an SS uniform, Goose step
around this Newsgroup and shout "Into the Gas Chambers, you
trash-brawing sorry excuse for human flesh!!"
Does what Ratman said up there sound like Censorship? And I'm not
talking atttempts to keep kids away from smut--I'M TALKING OUT AND OUT
CENSORSHIP!!!
And yo supported the Blue Ribbon Campaign. You disgust me to no end,
you son of a bitch.
Let's Mass Flame this Bastard!
William Earl Haskell
Ratman wrote:
>
> I'm not giving any more attention to this. It was fun for awhile, but this has
> gotten too pathetic, even for me.
No matter - it's just Sinder in drag - trolling again. I don't believe
"she" even drew that stuff in the first place. >:p
Ratman
dgo...@spiff.net (David Gonterman) wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Sep 1997 14:32:15 GMT, ra...@rat.org (Ratman) wrote:
>
>>You have no idea how much email i get a day.
>>I remember nothing from you regarding "this is something that's bothering me,
>>and i'm going to quit the archive if it doesn't get resolved". I'd hope i would
>>remember something like that. I remember some idle chatter about it.
>>Nothing even slightly resembling that. If you did ever imply that, I must have
>>missed it. But you quit the SCFA, and therefore have no say on it's policy
>>towards the artists as far as i'm concerned. If you had wanted to hang on and
>>try to work it out, that would be one thing, we could have tried to turn things
>>around, but you quit, so the hell with ya.
>
>
Jim Doolittle
In article <341739...@foto.infi.net>, iani...@foto.infi.net wrote:
[slice]
> "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me!!"
Post something inflammatory in here, expect about the same response.
Maintain a low level presence, respond only to things that interest you
and be resonable, and most of us will be happy to see you.
> FAREWELL losers!!!!!!
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
-Jim, being unusually unreasonable.
--
Jim Doolittle Gimli in Avara Aureth on FurryMuck
dool...@uiuc.edu gi...@avara.com
http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/doolittl PGP 5.0 public key available
JDupont378
>
>Yeah...I WITHDREW my stuff from his site cause I didn't like it..and I
>HAVE my own web site...or didn't you read the thread?
>This wasn't about ratman's site..it was about Ms. Jennings' attempt to
>make this into a "war" with "sides"..and generally cause more and more
>hate..*shrug*.
>
*Yawn*
Hahahahhaha! Yes, Now yer gonna start calling "Ms. Jennings" a warmonger?
AH-hA! AHAHAHHAHAHH! and other fun exterolaptic metonernict conductics.
>>
>> ...with both your thumbs up yer ass, I bet you are. Sheesh.
>
>Oh..and THIS isn't out of line? *hands you the hypocrite of the day
>award*....
>
>
*Buster grabs award and reads ingraving*
Lets see, Hypocrite of the day award: awarded to Jennifer Ilena Reiter
12/03/88 for hypocrisy above and beyond the realm of stupidity!
Wow, I never met someone who had enough of these to give away her extras!
Although ya try to discredit
Ya still never edit
The needle, I'll thread it
Radically poetic
Standin' with the fury that they had
in ' 66
and like E-double, I'm mad
still knee-deep in the system's shit
Or maybe not.
JDupont378
>
>Waitaminute...isn't this the same guy who said that he wanted the whole
>flame thing with me to end?
>
>Nice...you can share the hypocrite's award with MR. Haskell *smirk*..
>
>
*SMIRK*
Ha, At least I tried to stop it, Be-yach. You seem to love this, and of
course you are right.
*Yawn*
I love it, keep up the great stuff, you should be a fiction writer.
Vaughan
Lisa Jennings wrote:
>
> Nate Patrin wrote:
> >
> > Lisa Jennings <Allthis@SPAM_is_for_sandwiches.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey, Ratman... this is starting to sound like the "I hate Spam" sites.
> > > One of them (I don't remember the URL) keeps a record of obnoxious
> > > people who threaten him because he's denouncing their spam and
> > > email-pyramid schemes.
> >
> > http://www.clark.net/pub/rolf/mmf/ ? Heehee.
>
> Yup! That's the one! He's _very_ thorough about his email trail...
>
> > Anyways, yeah, the twits page on rat is pretty freakish. Almost
> > disturbing... shit, the kindsa things website admins hafta go through, huh?
>
> are on Ratman's side should draw him something as a symbol of support?
>
kodez; heh, I still remember the lamerz page for all the punks who sent
in bogus fatalities and BS tricks that were such blatant lies, they
deserved a good public humiliation (nude-alities, anyone? *snicker*).
They work quite well, actually. >:) Either way, I liked his site then, I
still like it now. As far as I'm concerned, Rat's got my support.
You da bomb, Rat!!!! :)
_________________________________________________________________________
"...I take life, with a bit of a twist..."
--The TOASTERS, "Razor Cut"
Big Drew "The Phox" Vaughan
http://www.FurNation.com/big_drew
Fine Purveyor of Cool Furry Stuff
Syrano @ FurryMUCK
JDupont378
>
>FAREWELL losers!!!!!!
>-Jennifer Ilena Reiter
YES!!!! Now only to retain it.
How many times has she teased us with promises of exile?
But if she is seriouse, I might be in a better mood!
Anyways...probably should have listened to what folks who had been on
JLR and never came back said....I must quote (to some extent, I didn't
log it, but it stuck in my mind pretty well) what was said to me about
JLR.
"Don't waste yo time, Foo. He is just fighting, or talking
about useless topics all da time. G." -Michael "Peaches" Finto.
"JLR is a small clique (I must agree with this, it's the same person
posting over and over again) of snot who will never allow a new person
to start posting, without flaming them (note, not the post, THEM..the
POST-ER)" -Alex "Stinky" S. Skull
(yes, I heard the word and twice)
"I don't post to JLR anymore. She is just an overreactionary snot"
-Randel "Wonko" Manton
(yes, I heard the word snot twice)
"It's crap central"
-John "Vamparto" Ingat
Sheesh...next time I'll know to listen to mind friends :)
"Spam is part of a balanced food."
A Super Genius...
JDupont378 (jdupo...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <341752...@hal-pc.org>, William Earl Haskell
: <for...@hal-pc.org> writes:
: >No matter - it's just Sinder in drag - trolling again. I don't believe
: >"she" even drew that stuff in the first place. >:p
: >
: >
: Yah know, I was thinking the same thing. BUt If s/he is really gone for
: good, Then I can stop complaining and get on with my life.
God I wish it was just Sinder all over again. I'm sorry to say, I
almost knew Jennifer personally =P
--
What you see here is a fantasy! A computer enhanced halucination!
--
JDupont378
Dr. Skorzy MacFarlaighn
David Gonterman wrote:
> My God, Ratman, why don't you dress up as an SS uniform, Goose step
> around this Newsgroup and shout "Into the Gas Chambers, you
> trash-brawing sorry excuse for human flesh!!"
Hmmm.. Such a lovely image. But, its nothing less than I'd expect from
somebody like you.
> Does what Ratman said up there sound like Censorship? And I'm not
> talking atttempts to keep kids away from smut--I'M TALKING OUT AND OUT
> CENSORSHIP!!!
Its not censorship... its his private server, its his hardware and he
has the right to have/delete anybody on it at will...
I think Ratman should have a simple sign on his archive for simpleminded
kiddies like you...
"We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone"..
However, most people understand this...
> And yo supported the Blue Ribbon Campaign. You disgust me to no end,
> you son of a bitch.
Sonny. Do you even *know* what the Blue Ribbon Campaign was? No... I
thought not. Another dilettente for my file...
>
> Let's Mass Flame this Bastard!
Listen kiddo..take your playground politics somewhere else. Nobody is
listening to you and you've just painted yourself as an ignorant fool to
the entire furry community.
You're grounded and you get no desert after dinner!
--
J. Scott Rogers (Dr. Skorzy MacFarlaighn / rat-Biorg physician)
UMASS Medical Center
Program in Molecular Medicine ** sko...@ma.ultranet.com **
Worcester, Massachusetts ** jeff....@ummed.edu **
--
"The Biorg Universe" (Anthropomorphic Fiction)
http://www.tiac.net/users/bfoxxe/tbu-contents.shtml
"The Home for Tenured Graduate Students" (Exercise in self-indulgence)
http://www.ummed.edu/pub/j/jrogers/
-- "Confusion will be my epitaph."
-- Robert Fripp, King Crimson
Lisa Jennings
iani...@foto.infi.net wrote:
> Yeah...I WITHDREW my stuff from his site cause I didn't like it..and I
> HAVE my own web site...or didn't you read the thread?
> This wasn't about ratman's site..it was about Ms. Jennings' attempt to
> make this into a "war" with "sides"..and generally cause more and more
> hate..*shrug*.
Madam, I am no more a 'warmonger' than Clinton is a member of the
Heaven's Gate Club.
No further comments are warrented. I won't play your little game.
Goodnight.
JDupont378
You may not know, but there are more Nazi's in Canada than Germany! So
stop this racist "all Germans are Nazi's so by calling Kilo Herr Ratman, I
am calling him a Nazi" shit. I bet you don't even know what Nazi means?
David Gonterman
My apologies for losing my church membership back there.
It just that when you get kicked off a server, get kicked through the
door on your way out and then have your name smeared on a web page
like Herr Ratman said, you don't expect that person to be all
lubby-dubby on the keyboard. I felt hurt, insulted, frustrated, and
just plain ticked off to no end.
And then you tell me not to cuss?
And then you get worried over all those cases of people gone postal.
David Gonterman
On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 10:10:03 -0500, "Dr. Skorzy MacFarlaighn"
<jeff.rogers@SPAM_REMOVE.ummed.edu> wrote:
>Well..
>
>I'm not a fan of a "twits" page by any means, as they're usually
>slanderous and one sided, BUT... seeing how Mr. Gonterman has sent
>abusive emails to Ratman, who is providing a FREE service to artists, I
>can understand Ratman's position on this.
>
>It is very frustrating to deal with immature people, I think Ratman is
>defending himself quite fine by letting the facts speak for themselves
>without launching a smear campaign of his own.
What do you mean, Free, when he'll kick you out on a whim, and that
page he posted about me is *definitely* a Smear!
I think you drew First Blood on this one, Herr Ratman.
Kese
David Gonterman wrote:
He means free as in Ratman not asking for monetary compensation for
hosting artwork, not free for all, as in just anyone can post any crap they
feel like. Sounds pretty damn fair to me. As for smearing you, those
words on the page are your own.
>
>
> I think you drew First Blood on this one, Herr Ratman.
Gods, will you stop with this sick allegory comparing your artwork
being removed to the suffering of millions of people. Talk about
overstatement:P
Kese
Dr. Skorzy MacFarlaighn
David Gonterman wrote:
> What do you mean, Free, when he'll kick you out on a whim, and that
> page he posted about me is *definitely* a Smear!
First. He didn't kick you out on a whim. You gave him a reason. If
abusive email isn't a reason, then I don't know what is. If you
consider a ban on the copious amounts of Sonic artwork an excuse for
threatening, complaining and whining about censorship...well.. you
should go outside more.
Second. The SCFA is free storage/advertisement for artists. Ratman
does NOT have to do this. He is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost of the
SCFA and has the ultimate right to do whatever he feels to the
sight..including initializing the drives that the SCFA is resident on
and closing the entire thing down overnight...
Third. You are the perpetrator of a "smear" campaign against Ratman,
not the other way around. When you start emailing abusive emails to him
and publically admonishing him for everything he does...well.. I think
his reaction was quite justified as a defense. (e.g. posting your
abusive and threatening emails)
>
> I think you drew First Blood on this one, Herr Ratman.
Wrong, kiddo. However, you'll never understand, so like Ratman, I see
no point in discussing this thread any further.
I suggest you find another hobby.
-Skorzy
David Gonterman
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 14:51:43 -0400, Lisa Jennings
<Allthis@SPAM_is_for_sandwiches.com> wrote:
>Have you considered sending mail to AOL regarding his email abuses? I
>believe mail-bombs fall into the same Abuse catagory that spam does...
I wouldn't know how to mail-bomb someone, but someone else might, I
just want to give them a target...
David Gonterman
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 18:17:31 GMT, ra...@rat.org (Ratman) wrote:
>No, you quit. I have the whole email conversation documented on
>http://rat.org/twits/gonterman.html for everyone to see.
>All you can do is try to deny it.
Maybe I did, but you did the on-line version of kicking my @$$ when
you walked through the door. THAT IS KICKING OUT, Herr Ratman!
Dr. Skorzy MacFarlaighn
David Gonterman wrote:
>
> I wouldn't know how to mail-bomb someone, but someone else might, I
> just want to give them a target...
Your suggestion above is considered abuse by its own right.
David Gonterman
On 12 Sep 1997 13:01:42 GMT, t...@urz.tu-dresden.de (Tobias Koehler)
wrote:
>> You may not know, but there are more Nazi's in Canada than Germany! So
>> stop this racist "all Germans are Nazi's so by calling Kilo Herr Ratman, I
>> am calling him a Nazi" shit. I bet you don't even know what Nazi means?
>
>now it really gets off topic, but i'm a german and i always
>giggle about how the bad guys have a funny pseudo-german accent
>in american b-movies.. too bad this doesn't come over in the
>translated versions. now, a german who would be angry at this
>(and not amused like me) would show that he has national pride,
>which is a very dangerous thing in a german.. i certainly
>wouldn't trust such a person.
I'm not calling Ratman a nazi because he's from Germany or any
ethnicity. I'm not judging the color of his skin. I'm judging the
content of his character, and it stinks to no end. Someone who could
throw out artists because you don't like the way they draw doesn't
take as much anger in one's heart as it does chucking 60 million
unfavorables into the Gas Chambers. They're both facism, pure and
simple. Ratman may not be as severe as Hitler, but it still counts.
How did this out-of-proportion stuff get started?
Tobias Koehler
On 11 Sep 1997 20:25:37 GMT, JDupont378 (jdupo...@aol.com)
wrote in alt.fan.furry:
> You may not know, but there are more Nazi's in Canada than Germany! So
> stop this racist "all Germans are Nazi's so by calling Kilo Herr Ratman, I
> am calling him a Nazi" shit. I bet you don't even know what Nazi means?
now it really gets off topic, but i'm a german and i always
giggle about how the bad guys have a funny pseudo-german accent
in american b-movies.. too bad this doesn't come over in the
translated versions. now, a german who would be angry at this
(and not amused like me) would show that he has national pride,
which is a very dangerous thing in a german.. i certainly
wouldn't trust such a person.
unci
--
tobias benjamin koehler * * * * ,-/o"O`--.._ * _/(_ *
* * * * * * _,-o'.|o 0 'O o O`o--'. e\
dresden, europe * (`o-..___..--''o:,-' )o /._" O "o 0 o : ._>
* * ``--o___o..o.'' * :'.O\_ ```--.\o .' `--
un...@tigerden.com * * * `-`.,) * \`.o`._
t...@rcs.urz.tu-dresden.de * * * fL `-`-.,)
JDupont378
Nazism refers to the ideology and policies espoused and practiced by Adolf
Hitler and his Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National
Socialist German Workers party) from 1921 to 1945.
Now, National Socialist GERMAN workers party.
If you are calling Kilo a NAZI but saying he is not German, thats pretty
stupid. Next time call him a neo-nazi or somthing, that way you will only
sound like you are blowing things out of propotion, instead of completly
ignorant.
Nazism:
(1) A belief--with a theoretical and pseudoscientific basis in the works
of the comte de Gobineau, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and Alfred
Rosenberg--in an Aryan German race superior to all others and destined to
rule, together with a violent hatred of Jews that led to the establishment
of concentration camps and to the Holocaust.
I did not know that Kilo had death camps....
(2) An extreme nationalism that called for the complete unification of all
German-speaking peoples. This led to the occupation of Austria, a
German-speaking country, and of Czechoslovakia, which had a large German
minority.
Also, I did not know the SCFA's was made to unifiy all German-Speaking peoples.
(3) A belief in some form of corporative state socialism, although the
left-leaning members of the party were purged in 1934.
Ohhkay.
(4) A private army, called the SS (Schutzstaffel, or security echelon)
Ha, Yeah, I guess Kilo Does have a private army, they are call whiney
brats who follow him around and complain.
(5) A youth cult that emphasized sports and paramilitary outdoor activities.
Sounds more like 4-H than the SCFA...
(6) The massive use of propaganda, masterminded by Joseph Goebbels.
Gee, I didn't know Kilo Knew the Big G.
(7) The submission of all decisions to the supreme leader Adolf Hitler,
and the glorification of strength and discipline.
Darn, I didn't know that Kilo was Aldof Hitler? I thought Adolf ment Wolf,
not Rat.
Nazism somewhat resembled fascism, which preceded it in Italy. It spawned
several small Nazi parties in the occupied countries, Britain, and the
United States (see neo-Nazi movements).
Oops, so now Kilo is a German Nazi, an Italian Fascist, and a Russian
Communist! Wow, thats alot of work for one person.....
Fascism was an authoritarian political movement that developed in Italy
and other European countries after 1919 as a reaction against the political
and social changes brought about by World War I and the spread of socialism
and communism. Its name was derived from the fasces, an ancient Roman
symbol of authority consisting of a bundle of rods and an ax.
The Philosophy of Fascism
Fascist ideology, largely the work of the neoidealist philosopher Giovanni
Gentile, emphasized the subordination of the individual to a "totalitarian"
state that was to control all aspects of national life. Violence as a
creative force was an important aspect of the Fascist philosophy.
So Kilo, controlls everything and uses violence to enforce his ways?
WRONG, he controlls what he lets on, not what you draw. And He hardly
resorts to violence (unlike some "LETS MAILBOMB HIS ASS!" Type of people)
What did we learn today?
People who have arguments with no basis is fact often use catch phrases
like "Nazi, Hitler, Fascist, Commie" to personally attack people.
Or maybe not.
PissedOffFurry
David Gonterman <dgo...@spiff.net> wrote in article
<34197861...@news.accessus.net>...
> On 12 Sep 1997 13:01:42 GMT, t...@urz.tu-dresden.de (Tobias Koehler)
> wrote:
>
> >> You may not know, but there are more Nazi's in Canada than Germany! So
> >> stop this racist "all Germans are Nazi's so by calling Kilo Herr
Ratman, I
> >> am calling him a Nazi" shit. I bet you don't even know what Nazi
means?
> >
> >now it really gets off topic, but i'm a german and i always
> >giggle about how the bad guys have a funny pseudo-german accent
> >in american b-movies.. too bad this doesn't come over in the
> >translated versions. now, a german who would be angry at this
> >(and not amused like me) would show that he has national pride,
> >which is a very dangerous thing in a german.. i certainly
> >wouldn't trust such a person.
>
> I'm not calling Ratman a nazi because he's from Germany or any
> ethnicity. I'm not judging the color of his skin. I'm judging the
> content of his character, and it stinks to no end. Someone who could
> throw out artists because you don't like the way they draw doesn't
> take as much anger in one's heart as it does chucking 60 million
> unfavorables into the Gas Chambers. They're both facism, pure and
> simple. Ratman may not be as severe as Hitler, but it still counts.
WTF? Ratman has exercised his RIGHTS in choosing WHO he wants on HIS
(Not YOURS, Not PUBLIC, but PRIVATE, PERSONALLY-OWNED) SERVER!
You don't like it? TOUGH! Start a Server of your own, Pay out the
friggin' $$ for it, THEN see what kind of BULLSHIT YOU have to put
up with...
> How did this out-of-proportion stuff get started?
YOU started it, you clueless ASSHOLE!
*PLONK!*
... Yeah, I'm hiding my identity from this obvious mental deficient,
"I ain't stupid, ya know."
CMelvi6195
In article <341c4e7b...@news.accessus.net>, dgo...@spiff.net wrote:
>My apologies for losing my church membership back there.
>
>It just that when you get kicked off a server, get kicked through the
>door on your way out and then have your name smeared on a web page
>like Herr Ratman said, you don't expect that person to be all
>lubby-dubby on the keyboard. I felt hurt, insulted, frustrated, and
>just plain ticked off to no end.
Sorry, but nobody here is buying it.
We've read the account; your own words have condemned you. We've
seen your abusive pictures sent to Kilo; they speak bushels. We see your
actions here; and you're only digging yourself in deeper.
You're not fooling anybody here but yourself. Moral of story: if
you play with matches, you -will- get burned.
>And then you tell me not to cuss?
No. We're telling you that we're not taken in by your
self-deceptions, and your further endeavors to rewrite history and
denigrate Kilo are pointless, ineffective, and are just simply being
laughed at by the collective AFF. Which is an unusual act of consensus for
this group, as it is.
-Chuck Melville-
http://members.aol.com/cmelvi6195/page1.html
CMelvi6195
I think what amazes me most on this thread, is how quickly it
disintegrated. From the point it began with Jennifer's original post, it
ran fairly smoothly, even with disagreements, up until the point that
Buster and Nate both became involved. And then the entire conversation
went to hell. Everything that Jennifer had said, or -tried- to say in her
first post was misinterpreted, digressed, or outright forgotton. Even
after she -clarified- her point, it was pointedly ignored in order to
defend some bruised egos.
Jennifer was trying to implore the contributors to SCFA to take
more of an interest in the quality of their art, and to adopt a
professional attitude to their works.
For what it's worth, I was in full agreement with her sentiments.
I think they were a bit idealistic and somewhat impractical, given
that the archive is a center for amateur artists, rather than a formal
professional art gallery; but I think her point of approaching the work
-professionally- was a valid and important part. Treating your art as
something you would think of as hanging on the wall of some gallery, as
opposed to something your Mom would hang on the refrigerator with a magnet;
it's the -attitude- she was trying to encourage, rather than some
individual standard of quality that everybody had to meet. I was with
Jennifer all the way on this point.
And then...
She made a tactical error: she let herself get dragged into an
online catfight with Buster, and traded insult for insult, deprecation for
deprecation, and temper for temper. She got sidetracked into an argument
with Rat about whether or not his rules were arbitrary or whether he
responded to her e-mail queries. And somebody let David Gonterman in.
Far worse is that Jennifer made a vicious swipe and accusation of
brownnosing to Lisa. That was where Jennifer lost my support. Not only
was the accusation essentially incorrect, but it was totally uncalled for;
Lisa's had been the one genuine moderate voice in the whole discussion,
trying to cool things down. She didn't deserve the slap she got for her
trouble.
The tragedy of this is that, after trying to encourage SCFA
contributors a sense of professionalism and pride in their art, she allowed
herself to become -very- unprofessional in her online posts with Buster,
Lisa, Nate, and Rat. (And, with the exception of Lisa, none of these were
completely innocent in their exchanges either.) With her higher ideals,
Jennifer had the farthest to fall than the rest.
What was achieved? SCFA lost a talented artist from its archives,
that same artist loses much of her professional veneer in front of an
entire assemblage, and everybody else breathes deep in relief because the
nasty lady is gone. And someone let David Gonterman in. Hardly much of a
gain for the first real flamewar we've had on AFF in months.
I really do hesitate to make a martyr out of Jennifer. I offered
my support earlier on for her position, but I was frankly appalled by her
later actions, and for her treatment to Lisa. That professionalism she was
trying to instill doesn't begin with a blank sheet of paper or end with a
masterpiece on a museum wall; it is an attitude that is always -on-; it
isn't a sometime thing that comes off after 5:00, but is worn through the
waking hours, even when dealing with the most pig-headed and immature, as
difficult as that can be. And Jennifer blew it.
But, damn it! She was -right- in the beginning!
-Chuck Melville-
http://members.aol.com/cmelvi6195/page1.html
CMelvi6195
Let's talk about Rat and the SCFA.
One other thing that came out of the "abuse" thread was complaints
over how artists get on, or what kind of art gets displayed, or whether he
shows favoritism, and a whole bunch of things.
Well, yeah.
It's been said now, more than once; and Lisa said it; I said it;
Kese said it; Rat himself said, and so have several others: it's his
server, so he can do what he wants.
That's cool. I don't have a problem with that. I'm not paying
for the service; how should I dictate to him what he must show? As long as
he doesn't harm the integrity of my images (which are sort of 'on loan'), I
don't care what he does with them. And should I have a problem, I can take
them elsewhere.
So can we all.
Do we have a -right- to be on his site? Absolutely not. No more
of a right than I have to sleep on his couch uninvited. Why do some people
have a problem -digesting- this little fact?
Now, I admit I might get annoyed if for some reason he decided not
to allow a particular image or another of mine on the server... but
ultimately, it's his server. And I can take the images elsewhere.
There's always an elsewhere.
But Rat -- and also folks like Nexxus and Velan and Lycan and
whoever else sets up these servers and services for the rest of us to play
with, to store and share our art -- do these things -for- us, with little
to no monetary recompense. For the sake of preserving and sharing and
presenting to the world at large the fantasy and magic that artists do.
Because they want to.
And they constantly maintain it as well, dealing with an
evergrowing monster of digitized art that is forever being accessed and
fed. Having to deal with the blown servers, the dead drives, the quirky
software and the shortage of phone lines.
Most of the time the rest of us don't think of these things, don't
realize the amount of work and trouble that goes on behind the scenes; we
tend to take them all for granted, and maybe get a little irritated if, for
some one reason or another, those sites become temporarily unavailable.
And usually when they -do- hear from us, it's usually a gripe. A
complaint about somebody else's art in the archive. How slow the lines
are. How they're not doing it right.
Sadly, it's only during events like this that any of the rest of
us think to thank them for their aggravation, and while late is better than
not at all, it hardly seems enough.
From one artist, represented on at least three of the four sites
mentioned earlier, to Lycan, Rat, Velan and Nexxus: thank you, gentlemen.
The work, if not perfect, is still superlative, and all of your efforts,
singular and combined, are -greatly- and sincerely appreciated.
...you know, as none of us actually pay for the usage of these
archives, it might be nice to send these gentlemen some token of
appreciation for the work they've done in constructing and maintaining
these sights. I would like to suggest / reccommend / dare / invite /
whatever to the other three hundred or so artists on these site to each
send one or another of these gentlemen a fox. One little drawing apiece;
doesn't sound like much, but we all know how much furry art can cheer people up.
Let's everybody send a fox to SCFA, FurNation, Tau-Ceti, and
Yiffco. The fox is in the mail!
(Now, I'm a little light on foxes, myself; but I can still crape
together a fennec, three inebriated tabbys, and a dead mouse...)
-Chuck Melville-
http://members.aol.com/cmelvi6195/page1.html
JDupont378
In article <19970913120...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
cmelv...@aol.com (CMelvi6195) writes:
>
> I really do hesitate to make a martyr out of Jennifer. I offered
>my support earlier on for her position, but I was frankly appalled by her
>later actions, and for her treatment to Lisa. That professionalism she was
>trying to instill doesn't begin with a blank sheet of paper or end with a
>masterpiece on a museum wall; it is an attitude that is always -on-; it
>isn't a sometime thing that comes off after 5:00, but is worn through the
>waking hours, even when dealing with the most pig-headed and immature, as
>difficult as that can be. And Jennifer blew it.
>
> But, damn it! She was -right- in the beginning!
Wrong, She was wrong all along. You can have the best ideas, but if you
have her eLiTe additude, your already spouting false words. Why did It turn
into a online catfight? Because she E-mailed me treating me like an
inferior. I am not a inferior to anyone who thinks they are the best artist
on the web. Anyone who thinks they are the best is living in their head. I
sure know that I am not even close to the best, and I didn't go after her
untill she started sending outright abusive E-mail and attacking Lisa. I
don't know. You try to defend her early actions, but your missing the point.
Anyone Can say the -right- thing, but what they -MEAN- is the diffrence!
She said, LETS HAVE ARTIST POST THEIR GOOD ART!
What she mean was, Lets get rid of the "inferior" artist so everyone can
see MY art.
Jim Doolittle
In article <19970913215...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
cmelv...@aol.com (CMelvi6195) wrote:
[great idea sliced]
> Not at all! I invite all of the furry writers on the net to also
> draw and send in foxes!
*chuckle*
I'd love to Chuck, just one little problem. Y'see, I have no talent at
drawing. My stick figures look nasty. ;-) So I try to write instead.
So, unfortunately, there will be no fox from me. Great idea, though. :)
-Jim
--
Jim Doolittle Gimli in Avara Aureth on FurryMuck
dool...@uiuc.edu gi...@avara.com
http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/doolittl PGP 5.0 public key available
CMelvi6195
In article <341AD4E7.7785@SPAM_REMOVE.ma.ultranet.com>, "Dr. wrote:
>Yes. I extend my appreciation to Deon Ramsey (Miavir) over in Germany
>for maintaining a comprehensive Furry Writer's list. While not an
>archive, its an excellent directory of stories...
Good point, I was overlooking Miavir, though not intentionally.
And I'm sure there are others performing similar duties that I also have
forgotton to mention, and they are -all- deserving of thanks. How about
the folks who operate the various MUCKS? Or the IRC channels? If you know
them, if you think you couldn't get along without the services they give,
send them a note of thanks: send them a fox today.
(What the hell, we're artists -- not only do we need the practice,
we were just going to doodle foxes anyway. Might as well put it to Good Use.)
>> send one or another of these gentlemen a fox. One little drawing apiece;
>> doesn't sound like much, but we all know how much furry art can cheer people
>
>
>The "Appreciative Fox Campaign!" *laugh*..
>
>I have one suggestion, send Ratman a "rat" instead of a fox. Its a good
>idea Chuck.
Well... fox seemed to be the appropriate currency exchange for
furry artists... but it doesn't need to be limited to any one species,
really. But I think a "Send A Fox" campaign seems catchier then "Send Them
Rats!" But, sure, send the appropriate species!
>Although...you limit this to only artists...
Not at all! I invite all of the furry writers on the net to also
draw and send in foxes!
One little cavat I didn't think of beforehand, though. I don't
know offhand any of these gentlemen's snail addresses for us to physically
send them pics, nor do I know if it's permissable to post them here if any
-do- have them at hand. So you may want to either simplay e-mail them
foxscans instead, or contact them individually and tell them, "Say I've got
this fox; where would you like it delivered?"
-Chuck Melville-
http://members.aol.com/cmelvi6195/page1.html
CMelvi6195
In article <19970913140...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
jdupo...@aol.com wrote:
>In article <19970913120...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>cmelv...@aol.com (CMelvi6195) writes:
>
>>
>> I really do hesitate to make a martyr out of Jennifer. I offered
>>my support earlier on for her position, but I was frankly appalled by her
>>later actions, and for her treatment to Lisa. That professionalism she was
>>trying to instill doesn't begin with a blank sheet of paper or end with a
>>masterpiece on a museum wall; it is an attitude that is always -on-; it
>>isn't a sometime thing that comes off after 5:00, but is worn through the
>>waking hours, even when dealing with the most pig-headed and immature, as
>>difficult as that can be. And Jennifer blew it.
>>
>> But, damn it! She was -right- in the beginning!
>
>Wrong, She was wrong all along. You can have the best ideas, but if you
>have her eLiTe additude, your already spouting false words. Why did It turn
>into a online catfight? Because she E-mailed me treating me like an
>inferior.
Since I didn't see the e-mail, I have only your word on that, and,
frankly, I don't know that I'd trust a second-hand recounting of the exchange.
More importantly, if there was a problem between you in e-mail, it
should have -stayed- there. Bringing e-mail discussions onto the
newsgroups, I have been informed in the past, is a breach of nettiquette.
That was a personal issue that did not belong here.
> I am not a inferior to anyone who thinks they are the best artist
>on the web. Anyone who thinks they are the best is living in their head. I
>sure know that I am not even close to the best, and I didn't go after her
>untill she started sending outright abusive E-mail and attacking Lisa.
Incorrect. You went after her the very next day, before (judging
from the posted responses) she attacked Lisa or sent you e-mail. You said
at that time:
>So in other words, your "Art" is more important than someones art?
>I think you are just pissed because your art is not up very long. So am I,
>but I am not going to bash someone who's art (In my opinoin) is not as good
>as mine, because it hurts when someones says, MY ART IS MORE IMPORTANT >THAN
>YOURS! I do agree some people are just uploading a million of pictures of
>42 tailed foxes, but thats a diffrent matter than those EVIL Artist who are
>not as good as some artist.
Right there was a misinterpretation of the point she had been
trying to make. Whereas she was trying to encourage a better attitude
towards one's work, you immediately assumed an elitist attitude on her
part, and derided her for it. This -was- the turning point of the thread;
from that point, it escalated rather quickly.
>I don't know. You try to defend her early actions, but your missing the
point.
No, I missed her point at first, and I admitted as much a couple
of days after the discussion began. I -do- see her point, the one she was
trying to make in the beginning. I also see a lot of defensiveness thrown
up in response, without any attempt on your part to give her even the
slightest benefit of the doubt. You took offense, and you ran with it.
>Anyone Can say the -right- thing, but what they -MEAN- is the diffrence!
True. But until evidence is actually given that their intent is
contrary to their words, I give them enough leeway to prove themselves.
Jennifer was out of line much later on when it fell to petty squabbling and
personal attacks; but maybe she might never have gone that way in the first
place if she hadn't been put under attack in the first place.
>She said, LETS HAVE ARTIST POST THEIR GOOD ART!
Correction: she said, let's have the artists post what they
-believe- is their best work. Go back and reread her posts carefully; I did.
Her position was that it seemed that too many artists were
uploading with self-deprecating comments, such as, "This isn't very good,
but..."; "I didn't have time for a good picture, so I threw this
together..." Maybe the posters didn't mean it quite so literally when they
uploaded those comments, but it does indeed read as though they themselves
weren't happy with the images in the first place, but felt constrained,
whether by peer pressure or inertia, to post -something- anyway. And this
was the one point I was in full agreement with Jeffifer over: if -you-
aren't pleased with the art, why afflict the rest of us? Give us your
best, what -you- believe is worthwhile of -your- time. We want to see the
very best you are capable of, and we don't mind waiting for it.
>What she mean was, Lets get rid of the "inferior" artist so everyone can
>see MY art.
That's a supposition, with no facts to support it. It -may- be
true, but she said nothing here to indicate that was her opinion. What she
might or might not have said in e-mail between you is altogether another
thing, and has no bearing here. -I- certainly don't know what she meant
other than what she posted here publicly; I've never seen her face-to-face,
or spoken with her by phone, so I'm unable to detect any inflections or
body language that might suggest to me that she might be lying or
double-talking.
Now, she -did- make complaints about her art on the Recent Uploads
page being pushed off by art of the sort I mentioned above, but she seemed
more put out by being pushed aside by folks who didn't seem to care as
deeply about their work as she felt about hers. She also said, though,
that she didn't mind -if- the art by others was actually something they put
their very best effort into.
I don't think it's elitism to want to produce excellent work, or
to expect others to want to feel the same way and act accordingly. It
might be impractical, or foolish, but it's certainly not elitist.
Or maybe it is. In which case, I'm all for it.
-Chuck Melville-
http://members.aol.com/cmelvi6195/page1.html
JDupont378
In article <19970913215...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
cmelv...@aol.com (CMelvi6195) writes:
> That's a supposition, with no facts to support it. It -may- be
>true, but she said nothing here to indicate that was her opinion. What she
>might or might not have said in e-mail between you is altogether another
>thing,
You have some good points, That post of mine you mentioned was not meant
as an attack. BUt I worded it wrong. That is probally why I took her
attacks so personally, I didn't know that she concitered my post an attack.
Oh well.
I did say sothing along the lines of "you don't care about the quality of
the art on SCFA, you just care that people see your art" and she was like
"OF COURSE YOU IDIOT!" That made me bit upset.
But there is a moral here?
Lets stop this now, I admit I should have worded my post better, she
should have concotered just focusing on the probelms with the SCFA and not
included all those "My art is more important than yours" Stuff.
I don't really care anymore, Lets stop argueing and get back to whats
really important: Drawing Mustelids.
Buster "Da city is da bomb." Charlie
Dr. Skorzy MacFarlaighn
CMelvi6195 wrote:
> And usually when they -do- hear from us, it's usually a gripe. A
> complaint about somebody else's art in the archive. How slow the lines
> are. How they're not doing it right.
>
> Sadly, it's only during events like this that any of the rest of
> us think to thank them for their aggravation, and while late is better than
> not at all, it hardly seems enough.
>
Bravo... well put...
I think this attitude of laissez-faire is endemic to the whole fandom.
I think writers suffer from it much MORE than the artists, as our
efforts are rarely acknowledged, but Chuck has pointed out how this is
more a widespread issue.
Frankly. We take for granted what's out there for us. How much fun
would this fandom be if everything had a price tag? This fandom would
die if only "Whores in the Business" dominated. You know, those of us
that create, but only do so when financial compensation is offered... .
Putting a price-tag on all their creations without participating freely
in it. I couldn't imagine this fandom being entertaining if that was
the case.
Remember, we're in the age when animated Disney movie cels sell at
Southebys for four and five digit sums... :X/
The fact that both artists and writers in this fandom keep contributing
to it freely is what keeps the enjoyment fresh. However, I think the
basal level of appreciation and acknowledgement is what's *required* to
keep the creativity alive here.
Have you ever sent a quick email to a new artist saying. "I just found
your work, I enjoy it very much, please keep it coming?"... How about
to a writer. "I enjoy your writing, please keep it up..?"...
If acknowledgement or appreciation is the only "cost" we have to pay to
keep this fandom "free", God...just do it! Don't let it only be bought
and sold...
> From one artist, represented on at least three of the four sites
> mentioned earlier, to Lycan, Rat, Velan and Nexxus: thank you, gentlemen.
> The work, if not perfect, is still superlative, and all of your efforts,
> singular and combined, are -greatly- and sincerely appreciated.
Yes. I extend my appreciation to Deon Ramsey (Miavir) over in Germany
for maintaining a comprehensive Furry Writer's list. While not an
archive, its an excellent directory of stories...
> send one or another of these gentlemen a fox. One little drawing apiece;
> doesn't sound like much, but we all know how much furry art can cheer people
The "Appreciative Fox Campaign!" *laugh*..
I have one suggestion, send Ratman a "rat" instead of a fox. Its a good
idea Chuck.
Although...you limit this to only artists...
I guess I'll stick with public support..
-Skorzy
Dan Poore
Disengage Lurk Mode.
A Super Genius... wrote:
> Has anyone called Godwin's law yet? This thread is over and dead with.
Yeah, I called it a few days ago. Oops, here I go, preserving the
thread even longer. ;)
> --
> What you see here is a fantasy! A computer enhanced halucination!
> --
Re-engage Lurk Mode.
CyberTiger ^..^
CyberTigr on FurryMUCK
--
___ ___ ____ @ ix.netcom.com Sorry for the
| \ /\ |\ | |\ | | | |__ hassle this causes, but I can't
| | /__\ | \ | | \ | |__| \ afford waiting on a 9600 modem
|__/ / \ | \| | \| | ___/ to get spam/UCE from my server.
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
In <34184c82...@news.accessus.net> dgo...@spiff.net (David Gonterman) writes:
[...]
>Maybe I did, but you did the on-line version of kicking my @$$ when
>you walked through the door. THAT IS KICKING OUT, Herr Ratman!
By implieing that Rat is a nazi you by the laws of the usenet have
decalared yourself the looser of this flame war. Thankyou for playing
please tip the doorwolf as you leave.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header.
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep. Buy easter bilbies.
Save the ABC Is $0.08 per day too much to pay? ex-net.scum and proud
I'm sorry but I just don't consider 'because its yucky' a convincing argument
Rainshadow
> was the one point I was in full agreement with Jeffifer over: if -you-
> aren't pleased with the art, why afflict the rest of us? Give us your
> best, what -you- believe is worthwhile of -your- time. We want to see the
> very best you are capable of, and we don't mind waiting for it.
What if it takes five years for an aspiring artist to come up with something they
are happy with, and what if it is too hard to spend so long trying with no other
feedback than from yourself? What if it hurts too much to admit that that crappy
scrawl in front of me is the best I can do right now? Unfortunately for some of us,
we aren't doing this 100% "for ourselves", in that we could really use a little
acceptance and encouragement from those whom we admire and model ourselves after.
I dunno, I can't help but think that if I put the time and effort in and one day
became an aritst whose work is appreciated by others, the one thing I would most
want is for other people to give _me_ something to look at for a change. Making
crappy art, as sorry as it may sound, may just be the way that some of us say
"thank you".
-Dan "Rainshadow" Pankratz
Nate Patrin
CMelvi6195 <cmelv...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970913120...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> Let's talk about Rat and the SCFA.
<well-said 'these sysadmins are groovy people' statement snipped>
> Let's everybody send a fox to SCFA, FurNation, Tau-Ceti, and
> Yiffco. The fox is in the mail!
Why a fox? I'm freakin' sick of 'em. I'm gonna send these mofos a lemur.
;o)>
-Nate "Inconveniently nonconformist" Patrin
CMelvi6195
In article <19970913222...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
jdupo...@aol.com wrote:
>You have some good points, That post of mine you mentioned was not meant
>as an attack. BUt I worded it wrong. That is probally why I took her
>attacks so personally, I didn't know that she concitered my post an attack.
>Oh well.
The major drawback to Usenet is that you -must- phrase yourself
carefully, or else misunderstandings will occur. Vocal inflections and
body language aren't visible to aid in conveying connotation to the words,
so the words must be precise in their meaning. I'm afraid I generally as a
rule of thumb skip over your posts entirely because I honestly can't gauge
if you're lost on a parody, making a salient point, or have stuck your
finger in a wall socket; it all reads the same to me, and I'm not patient
enough to decipher it. I suspect this was Jennifer's difficulty as well.
>I did say sothing along the lines of "you don't care about the quality of
>the art on SCFA, you just care that people see your art" and she was like
>"OF COURSE YOU IDIOT!" That made me bit upset.
And her response, if understandable given her frustration, was
wrong. This was where her professional attitude began to slip. She was as
much to blame from this point for the exchange that occured next.
At any rate, it's over and done with at this stage, and I agree
with you: this thread is dead.
-Chuck Melville-
http://members.aol.com/cmelvi6195/page1.html
Dr. Cat
JDupont378 (jdupo...@aol.com) wrote:
: I don't really care anymore, Lets stop argueing and get back to whats
: really important: Drawing Mustelids.
Yay mustelids!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Felines and equines and canids and stuff are cool too.)
CMelvi6195
In article <01bcc0d9$2f8ae800$b9c65ea0@default>, "Nate wrote:
>Nate beats a dead horse, Pt. 2
>
>CMelvi6195 <cmelv...@aol.com> yerfed at
>> jdupo...@aol.com ...
>>
>> >Why did It turn
>> >into a online catfight? Because she E-mailed me treating me like an
>> >inferior.
>>
>> Since I didn't see the e-mail, I have only your word on that, and,
>> frankly, I don't know that I'd trust a second-hand recounting of the
>exchange.
>> More importantly, if there was a problem between you in e-mail, it
>> should have -stayed- there. Bringing e-mail discussions onto the
>> newsgroups, I have been informed in the past, is a breach of nettiquette.
>
>> That was a personal issue that did not belong here.
>
>It would have if it was used to prove Jennifer's *real* opinion on what
>"professional" art was...
>
Nope. Not even. It was intended as private e-mail, and that's
where it belonged. Whether or not it helped to prove anything is
irrelevant. You don't bring private conversations into public.
>
>> Right there was a misinterpretation of the point she had been
>> trying to make. Whereas she was trying to encourage a better attitude
>> towards one's work, you immediately assumed an elitist attitude on her
>> part, and derided her for it.
>
>I personally think complaining about sharing a site with sketchy art does
>seem reasonably elitist... if not just plain pretentious.
Elitism is not interchangeable with pretentiousness. Elitism is aspiring
to a higher set of rules or ideals; pretentiousness is simply claiming to
do so, but not carrying through -- it's a snobbish pretense.
At any rate, at that stage she wasn't complaining about sharing
space with sketchy art, but with having her art that was showcased in the
recent uploads page being so swiftly pushed off by uploads of sketchy
material. To that end, she even put forth suggestions that perhaps instead
of going directly to the Recent Upload thumbnails, the sketchy art could be
deposited directly into the individual archives, leaving only the best and
complete images to be showcased. This might or might not have been
practical or even doable for Rat, but it was an attempt on her part to find
a middle ground of accomodation.
>>This -was- the turning point of the thread;
>> from that point, it escalated rather quickly.
>
>Probably because Jennifer had a temper shorter than Muggsy Bogues.
Who?
>Hell, my
>own follow-up to her was fairly reasonable and she jumped on me like a fur
>possessed... I don't think that ass-kissing slam against Micole was the end
>product of a long flamewar myself.
No, your first response to her was adversarial, smart-alecky,
arrogant, and antagonistic. I'm not entirely surprised she responded as
she did; she thought you were deliberately dissing her right off the bat.
That's how it reads to me as well.
><snip>
>
>> >Anyone Can say the -right- thing, but what they -MEAN- is the diffrence!
>>
>> True. But until evidence is actually given that their intent is
>> contrary to their words, I give them enough leeway to prove themselves.
>> Jennifer was out of line much later on when it fell to petty squabbling
>and
>> personal attacks; but maybe she might never have gone that way in the
>first
>> place if she hadn't been put under attack in the first place.
>
>Well, maybe she should have been prepared to have differing opinions thrown
>her way.
Yes, she should have. And frankly in the beginning she was
dealing with the first responses quite adult-like. What she wasn't
prepared for was the attitude-posts that came next.
>> >She said, LETS HAVE ARTIST POST THEIR GOOD ART!
>>
>> Correction: she said, let's have the artists post what they
>> -believe- is their best work.
>
>Most artists already do. I think my sketches *are* some of my best work.
>And if you disagree, tough.
My agreement or disagreement on that point is irrelevant. But I
do agree that her expectations were somewhat unrealistic, just as I
personally agree that there's nothing wrong at heart with just putting up
sketches. But that was -not- her complaint. Her complaint was that people
were getting by with just throwing such sketches up without care or
consideration, eschewing professionalism for convenience; a point I would
have thought you in sympathy with.
>
>> And this
>> was the one point I was in full agreement with Jeffifer over: if -you-
>> aren't pleased with the art, why afflict the rest of us?
>
>Because some people are *never* pleased with their art- but there *are*
>people out there who DO like it. I pointed out in the thread that there
>were several pics I hated myself that people wound up liking... and
>Jennifer made some comment along the lines of "Well, it's not hard to find
>a fur who says they'll like your stuff". Gee, thanks. That makes me feel
>special.
Firstly, you took that personally when you shouldn't have; that
was a collective 'you' in her statement. And she's right; no matter how
good or bad something may be, there is always -somebody- who'll like it.
That's a universal truth. It's tougher to find somebody who not only likes
your work but can tell you specifcally why and in what way.
And, yes, there are people who are never pleased with their art.
They tend to be in a state of constant paralysis. Even so, I let the
statement stand. If -you- aren't satisfied, why afflict the rest of us?
I've heard your complaints about the staleness of other furry art before;
will you make an exception in your own case? Even if other people like it,
why show it if you aren't at least 95% satisfied? Scrap it and do it
again, and do it until it's the way you want it to be.
>> Give us your
>> best, what -you- believe is worthwhile of -your- time. We want to see
>the
>> very best you are capable of, and we don't mind waiting for it.
>
>People already do. Even when they say they don't.
In which case the disclaimer is a sympathy plea, which only lends
more credence to Jennifer's request to do away with them. I'd rather view
the art without a request to be kind and merciful because it was only a
sketch from last year when they riding a train and they didn't have
anything better to show.
I'd be more sypathetic without the disclaimer.
>>That's a supposition, with no facts to support it. It -may- be
>>true, but she said nothing here to indicate that was her opinion.
>
>Interesting you should say that, 'cause...
>
><snip>
>
>> Now, she -did- make complaints about her art on the Recent Uploads
>> page being pushed off by art of the sort I mentioned above, but she
>seemed
>> more put out by being pushed aside
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Where'd she _say_ that? One thing she mentioned being pissed about was
>being upset about having something she did "yesterday" bumped off by
>something someone did a year ago.
Right in her very first post, she said:
{{I am very frustrated by the way folks are abusing this site. A site
which once had a reputation for being selective, and holding excellent
artwork is now a dumping ground for folks' "page of rough sketches" or
"I did this in two minutes" or "What I drew during 7th period"...
{{Folks...in recent uploads, there are 40 spots. Everyone's allowed up to
5 downloads a day at this time. There are over 200 artists on SCFA...I
usually see about 15 artists or so on the recent downloads page.
{{Now that's pretty good...EXCEPT...the thing scrolls so darn fast cause
folks are putting CRAP up!!
{{I know I depend at least slightly on the recent uploads page for
publicity of my artwork for commission purposes. I work hard on my work
before I put it up, and take pride in it. And it's off recent uploads in
less than 24 hours. (I've timed it. seen stuff up for as short a time as
12 hours)..}}
>> by folks who didn't seem to care as
>> deeply about their work as she felt about hers. She also said, though,
>> that she didn't mind -if- the art by others was actually something they
>put
>> their very best effort into.
>
>I've met a lot of furs who have work on the SCFA and hate it. If they
>believed in that philosophy of Jennifer's, they wouldn't have anything up.
>The problem is, these self-loathing artists do incredible work and keep
>putting it up because it means something to people. Whether or not these
>people put some sort of super-pro sis-boom-bah "I love this pic" feeling
>behind it may make a difference, but in the meantime it doesn't seem to
>affect how good the pic is. The big problem is she expressed a severe
>dis-satisfaction with the fact that people are putting up sketches- and if
>there's one point in an artist's week where he or she does his most
>interesting, spontaneous and blatantly fun stuff, it's during sketching
>time. So what to do- post some stuff you put some emotional (if not
>physical) effort into, even if it looks unpolished; or put up an
>ultra-detailed yet soul-less assembly-line cookie-cutter illustration?
>That's what continues to piss me off: I have some sketches I like- a lot-
>that I've been thinking of scanning and posting that I'm sure my friends
>will enjoy but, gosh, they're not museum quality, so why bother?
I don't know why not. You sound as though you're satisfied with
them; wherein, then, is the problem? You're still not grasping the point:
if you feel it's your best, or at least that it -is- good, then post it.
If you don't think so, then don't. But don't put up something and tell us
it's terrible; it's not only unprofessional to do so, or to tell us so, but
it comes off as a cheap sympathy ploy.
>> I don't think it's elitism to want to produce excellent work, or
>> to expect others to want to feel the same way and act accordingly. It
>> might be impractical, or foolish, but it's certainly not elitist.
>
>It *is* elitist to try and screw with an artists' mindset, at least when it
>works for this particular artist.
So, expecting you to produce good work according to your measure
is screwing with your mindset? You'll have to explain that.
>> Or maybe it is. In which case, I'm all for it.
>
>Meh. Toot your own horn or dig your own hole, just don't impose your rules
>on my art.
Nobody is imposing any rules. Not even Jennifer, at least not in
her original posts; she was attempting to encourage a positive behavior,
which is something else altogether. That it all fell apart and went to
hell afterwards has no bearing on that initial point.
-Chuck Melville-
http://members.aol.com/cmelvi6195/page1.html
CMelvi6195
In article <01bcc0d4$7dd2d4a0$b9c65ea0@default>, "Nate wrote:
>OK. I'm going to try and reply to this in a rational manner, even though
>this IS Chuck Melville, who branded me with the Bound For Obscurity label
>for not being a pinup artist... er, I digress. >;o)>
And that is an outright lie to start with, Nate, as I have never
said any such thing, not in public and not in private. You're going to
have to quote us chapter and verse to back up that statement.
>CMelvi6195 <cmelv...@aol.com> wrote in article
><19970913120...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>> I think what amazes me most on this thread, is how quickly it
>> disintegrated. From the point it began with Jennifer's original post, it
>> ran fairly smoothly, even with disagreements, up until the point that
>> Buster and Nate both became involved. And then the entire conversation
>> went to hell.
>
>Which would have been our fault if Jennifer hadn't tried to take us so
>damned seriously... I mean, damn! We're a couple-a teenage lobotomies who
>listen to noisy rock music and draw mustelids with huge guns and raccoons
>in raver gear, respectively. Why should she have cared?
That, unfortunately, is a good question. I certainly didn't your
remarks seriously at all; I'd even suggested to her to just ignore them and
let them ride. Regrettably, she didn't and she has herself to blame for
what happened next.
>> Everything that Jennifer had said, or -tried- to say in her
>> first post was misinterpreted, digressed, or outright forgotton.
>
>Oh, I don't think I forgot a few of her statements:
>-"usually see about 15 artists or so on the recent downloads page. Now
>that's pretty good...EXCEPT...the thing scrolls so darn fast cause folks
>are putting CRAP up!!"
>-"Folks, have some dignity and only put your best work up. Cut it out with
>the crappy artwork. It's annoying. It makes you look incompetent and lazy.
>It's unprofessional. You wouldn't put your notebook sketches in a
>gallery, would you? Think about it..."
>
>Now what's up with that? "Only your best artwork"? Maybe those "crappy
>sketches" were considered their best artwork! I mentioned in my followup
>post to this (which is about the point where the thread "went downhill"):
Which was why I thought her point was impractical in practice.
The SCFA isn't an art gallery but a sort of foating sketchbook, and some
folks were actually putting up some darn good sketches. Even so, I still
read these as being a call for putting forth a professional attitude in the
work, an attitude that she felt was lacking in several pieces.
>"I'm one of those artists that's uploaded "pages of rough sketches", and
>not to flaunt my productivity, either. Some of my sketchy pics- the ones
>I've done in less than three minutes, like the basic portraits and various
>other weirdness- are there because there's something I /like/ about
>them..."
>"I can judge on my own whether or not something [of mine is] worthy of
>uploading (if not, I'd be at 300+ images, most of them reasonably lame and
>over three years old). I think most other artists do, too... the ones that
>don't are probably just looking for critique or are just happy to have a
>place to exhibit all their stuff. (Which has gone a bit overboard for some,
>to be sure.)"
>"Again, the concept of "junk" is a subjective one. I'd rather see something
>Amara did during a slow moment in one of her biology courses than yet
>another vixen-tugging-the-lower-hem-of-her-t-shirt-over-her-crotch pic...
>(there's other poses, people!)"
>"This isn't the Guggenheim. And no matter how polished your work gets,
>somefur will always find *something* 'lazy' or 'unprofessional' in your
>work. (I learned this from experience... so've a lot of others.)"
>
>Her response? She called me a "fanboy" at my mention of Amara, referred to
>my post as "stupid" and "emotionally charged" for a little bit of (lame)
>humor I posted at the beginning replying to her inquiry over whether her
>message posted or not ("Nope, sorry, you message never show..ed........ up.
>Um.... OK, it worked. My mistake."), cracked "I don't care how bad you were
>way back when...I don't want the drawing which I did YESTERDAY shoved off
>by what you did last year..." and "yawned" at one of my ideas I had
>developing which I mentioned. While the rest of the post was fairly
>rational her irritated, condescending tone was what really started to pull
>it all downhill.
Sorry, but your own tone was every bit as condescending and
arrogant as hers was; if anything, her attitude was a direct response to
yours. Your humor doesn't always carry through and comes off more as
smartass jibes. I was as put off by it as she was. You reap what you sow.
As for Buster, Jennifer obviously ignored the fact that he
>was putting smileys after what she bluntly called "threats" and pretty much
>ignored the fact that Buster construed (perhaps accurately) that her gripe
>stemmed mostly from the fact that the proliferation of sketches pushed
>Jennifer off Recent Uploads.
Yeah, well, Buster is another case of an individualistic style
that is difficult to follow. As I've said elsewhere, I can't tell from one
post to the next what point he's trying to make or if he's serious,
satirical, or simply dwelling in another dimension. Gonzo chaos might be
cool, but it makes for confusion; therefore, I generally skip past all of
his posts and save myself the annoyance. I'm not surprised she didn't
grasp his meanings either.
>> Even
>> after she -clarified- her point, it was pointedly ignored in order to
>> defend some bruised egos.
>
>Well she didn't have to go about talking shit to people to prove her point.
Until your own posts, she hadn't been.
>> Jennifer was trying to implore the contributors to SCFA to take
>> more of an interest in the quality of their art, and to adopt a
>> professional attitude to their works.
>
>To some people, that's dictating how to go about one's artistic business.
>And you know how I feel about people telling me how to go about my artistic
>business...
Encouraging people to do their best is hardly -dictating-, Nate.
If someone saying to you "I want you to go out there today and draw like
you've never drawn before!" is what you consider to be -dictating-, then
you are far too sensitive about it.
>> For what it's worth, I was in full agreement with her sentiments.
>
>Hooray for you.
Thank you; I accept that cheer for the juvenile sarcasm it truly
is. May I have some more, sir?
>> I think they were a bit idealistic and somewhat impractical, given
>> that the archive is a center for amateur artists, rather than a formal
>> professional art gallery; but I think her point of approaching the work
>> -professionally- was a valid and important part. Treating your art as
>> something you would think of as hanging on the wall of some gallery, as
>> opposed to something your Mom would hang on the refrigerator with a
>magnet;
>
>I work my ass off on a lot of pics and give it a "professional attitude"
>and people still think it's Frigidare material.
Have any of us here said so? And are you speaking of a consensus
or of a few individual rotten little cusses?
>Besides, some people are
>too modest or ashamed about their art to say anything really positive about
>it, but they post it anyway in case someone likes it. I find these
>"unprofessional" people far less irritating than the ego-trippers...
Maybe they could start posting without the disclaimer then;
there's really no need to apologize for something you've created, and if
there is, then it probably shouldn't be there.
>> it's the -attitude- she was trying to encourage, rather than some
>> individual standard of quality that everybody had to meet.
>
>What are you talking about? She said herself that the last straw that made
>her quit the SCFA was a pic on Recent Uploads "with a notebook hole in it".
>Never mind that the sketch was pretty good...
I agree the sketch was good. It was still an unprofessional
presentation; you wouldn't take that around in a portfolio to an interview
or hang in a gallery. You'd find a way to get rid of the imperfection
first. You present a grade-A presentation. A quick fix with Photoshop
would eliminate that notebook hole pretty easily, and if the artist didn't
have the proper program, odds are s/he knew somebody who did. Not having
done so is a show of a careless attitude.
>> I was with
>> Jennifer all the way on this point.
>>
>> And then...
>>
>> She made a tactical error: she let herself get dragged into an
>> online catfight with Buster, and traded insult for insult, deprecation
>for
>> deprecation, and temper for temper. She got sidetracked into an argument
>> with Rat about whether or not his rules were arbitrary or whether he
>> responded to her e-mail queries. And somebody let David Gonterman in.
>
>He let himself in. Nobody'd willingly let him in...
>
>> Far worse is that Jennifer made a vicious swipe and accusation of
>> brownnosing to Lisa. That was where Jennifer lost my support.
>
>She lost my support long before that, man.
That was my previous point, Nate; not only did she lose your
support early on, she earned your antagonism... -before- she started making
her own mistakes in trying to argue with you.
>> Not only
>> was the accusation essentially incorrect, but it was totally uncalled
>for;
>> Lisa's had been the one genuine moderate voice in the whole discussion,
>> trying to cool things down. She didn't deserve the slap she got for her
>> trouble.
>
>Agreed there... for someone who'd squished my ego in a previous thread, she
>earned my respect back with her rational voice in this discussion. (Well,
>OK, she also gave me a fair critique, which is something I hadn't received
>in a while. ;o)> )
>
>> The tragedy of this is that, after trying to encourage SCFA
>> contributors a sense of professionalism and pride in their art, she
>allowed
>> herself to become -very- unprofessional in her online posts with Buster,
>> Lisa, Nate, and Rat. (And, with the exception of Lisa, none of these
>were
>> completely innocent in their exchanges either.)
>
>My first follow-up post to her was, while light-hearted and a bit strange,
>nowhere near the hostility I began to receive in return. If your news
>client will let you, make it so your client shows "All Messages" instead of
>"Unread Only". Read my follow-up.
I already have it all archived, and I have been referring to it as
I've been writing these replies. (And thank you for assuming that I'm a
novice who wouldn't know how to retrieve old articles.) As I remark
elsewhere, your first reply was -not- light-hearted (or, if it was intended
as such did not come out that way), but was as arrogant, condescending and
pissant as you claim Jennifer's was. No wonder she was pissed in her reply.
>As for Rat and Buster... well, Rat seemed
>somewhat confused and eventually justifiably pissed by the time Gonty
>jumped in. Buster was, as usual, being silly and noisy enough to draw
>attention away from the fact that he had something important to say. (Well,
>actually, I noticed the important stuff. I think everyone but Jennifer
>did.)
Rat was short and curt in several of his replies, and that wasn't
helping the situation. However, I'd give Rat far more leeway here as he'd
had plenty to be irritated about, -especially- with Gonterman jumping in.
He was more of an aggrieved bystander in this than anybody else, except for
Lisa.
>> With her higher ideals,
>> Jennifer had the farthest to fall than the rest.
>
>Higher ideals my ass. I'm not the one going around telling people not to
>upload their sketches because they might bump my latest pic off Recent
>Uploads... much less the one referring to those sketches as "crap"...
Her ideal was Professionalism. That seemed to be more than
anybody else was aspiring to. Whether you consider it valid is irrelevant;
that -she- considered valid is entirely relevant and that she failed to
live up to it is the entire point.
>> What was achieved? SCFA lost a talented artist from its archives,
>
>It was her own action, not anyone else's. Nobody forced her to go...
True. But the archive still lost a talented artist.
>> that same artist loses much of her professional veneer in front of an
>> entire assemblage, and everybody else breathes deep in relief because the
>> nasty lady is gone.
>
>Well, I'm sorry... but she kind of went off the deep end near the end of
>it. The "Farewell... losers" bit was more proof than anyone needed.
I don't disagree with that.
>> And someone let David Gonterman in. Hardly much of a
>> gain for the first real flamewar we've had on AFF in months.
>
>NOBODY let him in. OK? Gad. Unless you count the fact that people replied
>to him- and let's face it, replying to that kid's easier than diving for a
>tenner lying on the sidewalk.
Don't worry about the Gonterman references, Nate; it's a writing
style thing. Chill.
>> I really do hesitate to make a martyr out of Jennifer. I offered
>> my support earlier on for her position, but I was frankly appalled by her
>> later actions, and for her treatment to Lisa. That professionalism she
>was
>> trying to instill doesn't begin with a blank sheet of paper or end with a
>> masterpiece on a museum wall; it is an attitude that is always -on-; it
>> isn't a sometime thing that comes off after 5:00, but is worn through the
>> waking hours, even when dealing with the most pig-headed and immature, as
>> difficult as that can be. And Jennifer blew it.
>>
>> But, damn it! She was -right- in the beginning!
>
>@set me=Joel_Robinson: "Oh, I don't know..."
(sigh) No, I suppose you don't.
-Chuck Melville-
http://members.aol.com/cmelvi6195/page1.html
Nate Patrin
OK. I'm going to try and reply to this in a rational manner, even though
this IS Chuck Melville, who branded me with the Bound For Obscurity label
for not being a pinup artist... er, I digress. >;o)>
CMelvi6195 <cmelv...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970913120...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> I think what amazes me most on this thread, is how quickly it
> disintegrated. From the point it began with Jennifer's original post, it
> ran fairly smoothly, even with disagreements, up until the point that
> Buster and Nate both became involved. And then the entire conversation
> went to hell.
Which would have been our fault if Jennifer hadn't tried to take us so
damned seriously... I mean, damn! We're a couple-a teenage lobotomies who
listen to noisy rock music and draw mustelids with huge guns and raccoons
in raver gear, respectively. Why should she have cared?
> Everything that Jennifer had said, or -tried- to say in her
> first post was misinterpreted, digressed, or outright forgotton.
Oh, I don't think I forgot a few of her statements:
-"usually see about 15 artists or so on the recent downloads page. Now
that's pretty good...EXCEPT...the thing scrolls so darn fast cause folks
are putting CRAP up!!"
-"Folks, have some dignity and only put your best work up. Cut it out with
the crappy artwork. It's annoying. It makes you look incompetent and lazy.
It's unprofessional. You wouldn't put your notebook sketches in a
gallery, would you? Think about it..."
Now what's up with that? "Only your best artwork"? Maybe those "crappy
sketches" were considered their best artwork! I mentioned in my followup
post to this (which is about the point where the thread "went downhill"):
"I'm one of those artists that's uploaded "pages of rough sketches", and
it all downhill. As for Buster, Jennifer obviously ignored the fact that he
was putting smileys after what she bluntly called "threats" and pretty much
ignored the fact that Buster construed (perhaps accurately) that her gripe
stemmed mostly from the fact that the proliferation of sketches pushed
Jennifer off Recent Uploads.
> Even
> after she -clarified- her point, it was pointedly ignored in order to
> defend some bruised egos.
Well she didn't have to go about talking shit to people to prove her point.
> Jennifer was trying to implore the contributors to SCFA to take
> more of an interest in the quality of their art, and to adopt a
> professional attitude to their works.
To some people, that's dictating how to go about one's artistic business.
And you know how I feel about people telling me how to go about my artistic
business...
> For what it's worth, I was in full agreement with her sentiments.
Hooray for you.
> I think they were a bit idealistic and somewhat impractical, given
> that the archive is a center for amateur artists, rather than a formal
> professional art gallery; but I think her point of approaching the work
> -professionally- was a valid and important part. Treating your art as
> something you would think of as hanging on the wall of some gallery, as
> opposed to something your Mom would hang on the refrigerator with a
magnet;
I work my ass off on a lot of pics and give it a "professional attitude"
and people still think it's Frigidare material. Besides, some people are
too modest or ashamed about their art to say anything really positive about
it, but they post it anyway in case someone likes it. I find these
"unprofessional" people far less irritating than the ego-trippers...
> it's the -attitude- she was trying to encourage, rather than some
> individual standard of quality that everybody had to meet.
What are you talking about? She said herself that the last straw that made
her quit the SCFA was a pic on Recent Uploads "with a notebook hole in it".
Never mind that the sketch was pretty good...
> I was with
> Jennifer all the way on this point.
>
> And then...
>
> She made a tactical error: she let herself get dragged into an
> online catfight with Buster, and traded insult for insult, deprecation
for
> deprecation, and temper for temper. She got sidetracked into an argument
> with Rat about whether or not his rules were arbitrary or whether he
> responded to her e-mail queries. And somebody let David Gonterman in.
He let himself in. Nobody'd willingly let him in...
> Far worse is that Jennifer made a vicious swipe and accusation of
> brownnosing to Lisa. That was where Jennifer lost my support.
She lost my support long before that, man.
> Not only
> was the accusation essentially incorrect, but it was totally uncalled
for;
> Lisa's had been the one genuine moderate voice in the whole discussion,
> trying to cool things down. She didn't deserve the slap she got for her
> trouble.
Agreed there... for someone who'd squished my ego in a previous thread, she
earned my respect back with her rational voice in this discussion. (Well,
OK, she also gave me a fair critique, which is something I hadn't received
in a while. ;o)> )
> The tragedy of this is that, after trying to encourage SCFA
> contributors a sense of professionalism and pride in their art, she
allowed
> herself to become -very- unprofessional in her online posts with Buster,
> Lisa, Nate, and Rat. (And, with the exception of Lisa, none of these
were
> completely innocent in their exchanges either.)
My first follow-up post to her was, while light-hearted and a bit strange,
nowhere near the hostility I began to receive in return. If your news
client will let you, make it so your client shows "All Messages" instead of
"Unread Only". Read my follow-up. As for Rat and Buster... well, Rat seemed
somewhat confused and eventually justifiably pissed by the time Gonty
jumped in. Buster was, as usual, being silly and noisy enough to draw
attention away from the fact that he had something important to say. (Well,
actually, I noticed the important stuff. I think everyone but Jennifer
did.)
> With her higher ideals,
> Jennifer had the farthest to fall than the rest.
Higher ideals my ass. I'm not the one going around telling people not to
upload their sketches because they might bump my latest pic off Recent
Uploads... much less the one referring to those sketches as "crap"...
> What was achieved? SCFA lost a talented artist from its archives,
It was her own action, not anyone else's. Nobody forced her to go...
> that same artist loses much of her professional veneer in front of an
> entire assemblage, and everybody else breathes deep in relief because the
> nasty lady is gone.
Well, I'm sorry... but she kind of went off the deep end near the end of
it. The "Farewell... losers" bit was more proof than anyone needed.
> And someone let David Gonterman in. Hardly much of a
> gain for the first real flamewar we've had on AFF in months.
NOBODY let him in. OK? Gad. Unless you count the fact that people replied
to him- and let's face it, replying to that kid's easier than diving for a
tenner lying on the sidewalk.
> I really do hesitate to make a martyr out of Jennifer. I offered
> my support earlier on for her position, but I was frankly appalled by her
> later actions, and for her treatment to Lisa. That professionalism she
was
> trying to instill doesn't begin with a blank sheet of paper or end with a
> masterpiece on a museum wall; it is an attitude that is always -on-; it
> isn't a sometime thing that comes off after 5:00, but is worn through the
> waking hours, even when dealing with the most pig-headed and immature, as
> difficult as that can be. And Jennifer blew it.
>
> But, damn it! She was -right- in the beginning!
@set me=Joel_Robinson: "Oh, I don't know..."
-Nate "I won't let this thread die, dammit! *sob*" Patrin
CMelvi6195
Who?
usually see about 15 artists or so on the recent downloads page.
{{Now that's pretty good...EXCEPT...the thing scrolls so darn fast cause
folks are putting CRAP up!!
{{I know I depend at least slightly on the recent uploads page for
Nate Patrin
Nate beats a dead horse, Pt. 2
CMelvi6195 <cmelv...@aol.com> yerfed at
> jdupo...@aol.com ...
>
> >Why did It turn
> >into a online catfight? Because she E-mailed me treating me like an
> >inferior.
>
> Since I didn't see the e-mail, I have only your word on that, and,
> frankly, I don't know that I'd trust a second-hand recounting of the
exchange.
> More importantly, if there was a problem between you in e-mail, it
> should have -stayed- there. Bringing e-mail discussions onto the
> newsgroups, I have been informed in the past, is a breach of nettiquette.
> That was a personal issue that did not belong here.
It would have if it was used to prove Jennifer's *real* opinion on what
"professional" art was...
<snip>
> Right there was a misinterpretation of the point she had been
> trying to make. Whereas she was trying to encourage a better attitude
> towards one's work, you immediately assumed an elitist attitude on her
> part, and derided her for it.
I personally think complaining about sharing a site with sketchy art does
seem reasonably elitist... if not just plain pretentious.
>This -was- the turning point of the thread;
> from that point, it escalated rather quickly.
Probably because Jennifer had a temper shorter than Muggsy Bogues. Hell, my
own follow-up to her was fairly reasonable and she jumped on me like a fur
possessed... I don't think that ass-kissing slam against Micole was the end
product of a long flamewar myself.
<snip>
> >Anyone Can say the -right- thing, but what they -MEAN- is the diffrence!
>
> True. But until evidence is actually given that their intent is
> contrary to their words, I give them enough leeway to prove themselves.
> Jennifer was out of line much later on when it fell to petty squabbling
and
> personal attacks; but maybe she might never have gone that way in the
first
> place if she hadn't been put under attack in the first place.
Well, maybe she should have been prepared to have differing opinions thrown
her way.
> >She said, LETS HAVE ARTIST POST THEIR GOOD ART!
>
> Correction: she said, let's have the artists post what they
> -believe- is their best work.
Most artists already do. I think my sketches *are* some of my best work.
And if you disagree, tough.
<snip>
> And this
> was the one point I was in full agreement with Jeffifer over: if -you-
> aren't pleased with the art, why afflict the rest of us?
Because some people are *never* pleased with their art- but there *are*
people out there who DO like it. I pointed out in the thread that there
were several pics I hated myself that people wound up liking... and
Jennifer made some comment along the lines of "Well, it's not hard to find
a fur who says they'll like your stuff". Gee, thanks. That makes me feel
special.
Then again, she /did/ confuse me with Gene_Catlow (albeit probably
sarcastically)...
> Give us your
> best, what -you- believe is worthwhile of -your- time. We want to see
the
> very best you are capable of, and we don't mind waiting for it.
People already do. Even when they say they don't.
>That's a supposition, with no facts to support it. It -may- be
>true, but she said nothing here to indicate that was her opinion.
Interesting you should say that, 'cause...
<snip>
> Now, she -did- make complaints about her art on the Recent Uploads
> page being pushed off by art of the sort I mentioned above, but she
seemed
> more put out by being pushed aside
^^^^^^^^^^
Where'd she _say_ that? One thing she mentioned being pissed about was
being upset about having something she did "yesterday" bumped off by
something someone did a year ago.
> by folks who didn't seem to care as
> deeply about their work as she felt about hers. She also said, though,
> that she didn't mind -if- the art by others was actually something they
put
> their very best effort into.
I've met a lot of furs who have work on the SCFA and hate it. If they
believed in that philosophy of Jennifer's, they wouldn't have anything up.
The problem is, these self-loathing artists do incredible work and keep
putting it up because it means something to people. Whether or not these
people put some sort of super-pro sis-boom-bah "I love this pic" feeling
behind it may make a difference, but in the meantime it doesn't seem to
affect how good the pic is. The big problem is she expressed a severe
dis-satisfaction with the fact that people are putting up sketches- and if
there's one point in an artist's week where he or she does his most
interesting, spontaneous and blatantly fun stuff, it's during sketching
time. So what to do- post some stuff you put some emotional (if not
physical) effort into, even if it looks unpolished; or put up an
ultra-detailed yet soul-less assembly-line cookie-cutter illustration?
That's what continues to piss me off: I have some sketches I like- a lot-
that I've been thinking of scanning and posting that I'm sure my friends
will enjoy but, gosh, they're not museum quality, so why bother?
> I don't think it's elitism to want to produce excellent work, or
> to expect others to want to feel the same way and act accordingly. It
> might be impractical, or foolish, but it's certainly not elitist.
It *is* elitist to try and screw with an artists' mindset, at least when it
works for this particular artist.
> Or maybe it is. In which case, I'm all for it.
Meh. Toot your own horn or dig your own hole, just don't impose your rules
on my art.
-Nate "How many times do I have to tell people, anyways?" Patrin
Julian Ho
*Sigh !* Any room for world peace and love for all ? =oT
*BANG !* *BANG !* *BANG !*
[Lying in a pool of blood] *Urk !* guess not . . . .
;o) [JK !]
************JULIAN HO < juli...@singnet.com.sg >************
Peace and Love for ALL (Furries or otherwise)
~ Erin Lee the Swordmaker ~
The Mouse Guy From The Far, Far East of Redwall
Abakan
Dr. Skorzy MacFarlaighn wrote:
>
> Lisa Jennings wrote:
> >
> > Ratman wrote:
> > >
> > > Fine, I guess i have to make a twits page about you now. Rather than post it to
> > > a newsgroup and annoy those who don't care to follow gossip and whatnot, I'll
> > > just document it all on a web page.
> > > Enjoy.
> > >
> > > http://rat.org/twits/gonterman.html
>
> Well..
>
> I'm not a fan of a "twits" page by any means, as they're usually
> slanderous and one sided, BUT... seeing how Mr. Gonterman has sent
> abusive emails to Ratman, who is providing a FREE service to artists, I
> can understand Ratman's position on this.
Yes, Mr. Gonterman tried to show us all that he can act like a moron
( I liked his art, but I can´t support him if he sends emails like
this!! )
>
> I'd laugh too, but I like the SCFA and I think Ratman has shown an
> inordinate amount of patience in dealing with the BS he's been forced to
> swallow on this...
> More patience than I ever gave him credit for in the past...
>
I hope he will not quit because of the flames and pesterings!!
>
> I don't understand this at all. Ratman provides a free service, and
> people diss on him because he's got rules for the site. *shakes head*..
>
> This is kind of like living rent-free in a friend's house, then bitching
> at him because he moves some furniture around...
>
That´s ( almost ) exactly what´s happend!!
But it was more like " Hey, it´s your home, but I want all furnitures
in pink with little blue stars on it!!"
> Your options?
>
> 1. Negotiate in a civil manner...
>
> 2. Move out.
3. Drop dead.
>
> Seems pretty simple to me.
It IS simple!!
Abakan
JDupont378
In article <19970914105...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
cmelv...@aol.com (CMelvi6195) writes:
>
>>> What was achieved? SCFA lost a talented artist from its archives,
>>
>>It was her own action, not anyone else's. Nobody forced her to go...
>
> True. But the archive still lost a talented artist.
>
>
I just took a moment to look a good LONG look at her anthrompohic art.
Take a look:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/7636/VIXEN.JPG
Damn,. no wonder she was bashing my older art. I woulden't post that
picture if you payed me! But of course calling other peoples art CRAP will
get you defended, but me pointing out that I would rather see some shitty
sonic clone than this stuff will probally get me flamed. BUT WHAIT!
NOTE: This is not sarchasm, whatever.
The SCFA did loose a talent Artist, a talented artist, NOT a talented
Furry artist.
The picture mentioned above looks like som bimbo with her head crushed by
a large hammer with a tail stapled to her back. I must say, she is most
likely a more technical artist than me, but the shit I drew that is too
embarassing to even post online is more furry than her art. Hell, I drew
aircraft more furry than her stuff.
SO THERE.
Maybe thats why I am pissed of? She flames me because I am a "Talentless"
artist and she couldent draw a decent furry picture if you payed her.
Yeah, I'm a asshole.
And I suck, so there.
Rainshadow
In article <341B7A64...@bottomofpage.com>, Michael McGee <readsi...@bottomofpage.com> writes:
>
> (Oh yeah, and this is not a pipe. :)) <--- Ten points if you get the
> reference.
> --
> -Mike
Lesse... was it Bunuel? Or was it Dali'? Or was it that French DADAist whose name
I'm forgetting? If you say it's from that MTV ad, you're hopeless...
"Avida Dolars"... Twenty points if you get _that_ one! :)
Ob Furry: The big famous DADAist movie was named The Andalusian Dog,(Un Chien
Andalu'), even though there wasn't a dog in the entire film...
-Dan "Rainshadow" Pankratz, dilletante art buff
dpan...@biomail.ucsd.edu
JDupont378
> Yeah, well, Buster is another case of an individualistic style
>that is difficult to follow. As I've said elsewhere, I can't tell from one
>post to the next what point he's trying to make or if he's serious,
>satirical, or simply dwelling in another dimension. Gonzo chaos might be
>cool, but it makes for confusion; therefore, I generally skip past all of
>his posts and save myself the annoyance. I'm not surprised she didn't
>grasp his meanings either.
>
>
Ignorance is bliss...
Nate Patrin
Nate Patrin <patr...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in article
<01bcc138$c285a8c0$05195ea0@default>...
>
> -Nate "Not submitting to anything by MU press anytime soon..." Patrin
Actually, that should have read "Not submitting anything to MU press"...
but maybe a little Freudian slip came up. >;o)>
-Nate "Not submitting... uh... stuff... and, uh, yeah." Patrin
Tobias Koehler
On 14 Sep 1997 17:06:25 GMT, Rainshadow (ranshdow@au_au.ucsd.edu) wrote in alt.fan.furry:
> > (Oh yeah, and this is not a pipe. :)) <--- Ten points if you get the
> > reference.
> Lesse... was it Bunuel? Or was it Dali'? Or was it that French DADAist whose name
> I'm forgetting? If you say it's from that MTV ad, you're hopeless...
`Ceci n'est pas une pipe' - Magritte :)
> "Avida Dolars"... Twenty points if you get _that_ one! :)
Hmmm..
> Ob Furry: The big famous DADAist movie was named The Andalusian Dog,(Un Chien
> Andalu'), even though there wasn't a dog in the entire film...
And you remember what Kurt Schwitters got the name MERZ from? :)
(That would actually be a neat idea.. a Schwitters-like collage
of furry stuff) ;)
unci
--
tobias benjamin koehler * * * * ,-/o"O`--.._ * _/(_ *
* * * * * * _,-o'.|o 0 'O o O`o--'. e\
dresden, europe * (`o-..___..--''o:,-' )o /._" O "o 0 o : ._>
* * ``--o___o..o.'' * :'.O\_ ```--.\o .' `--
un...@tigerden.com * * * `-`.,) * \`.o`._ *
t...@rcs.urz.tu-dresden.de * * * fL `-`-.,)
CMelvi6195
In article <19970914223...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
jdupo...@aol.com wrote:
>In article <19970914221...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>cmelv...@aol.com (CMelvi6195) writes:
>
>>
>> You may not personally care for the image, but that's entirely a
>>subjective opinion. I certainly don't share that opinon. I see nothing
>>unprofessional about the rendering. It may not conform to the traditional
>
>I see nothing unprofessional either, its just not very furry.
It's a fox, Buster. Therefore, it's a furry.
>>furry notions of beauty, but it has its own uniqueness and charm to it.
>
>Unique? Charm? HA!
Yes. Even so.
>>Besides, I don't recall either you or Nate being all that fervent about
>>conformity anyway. If anything, the image reminds me somewhat of Herman
>>Miller's furry work, which is largely of a fairy tale/mythological bent.
>>
>Who? I wish you would stop makeing these vauge refrences.
I didn't realize I was. He does post here on AFF from time to
time, and he's on the Tau-Ceti site, if you need to check some examples.
Go to <http://furry.isc-br.com/pub/Images/> and then look for his folder.
>>>
>>>The SCFA did loose a talent Artist, a talented artist, NOT a talented
>>>Furry artist.
>>>The picture mentioned above looks like som bimbo with her head crushed by
>>>a large hammer with a tail stapled to her back. I must say, she is most
>>>likely a more technical artist than me, but the shit I drew that is too
>>>embarassing to even post online is more furry than her art. Hell, I drew
>>>aircraft more furry than her stuff.
>>>
>>>SO THERE.
>>
>> So there, what? Because you don't personally like it, it's crap?
>>Isn't that dangerously close to the attitude you've been accusing Jennifer
>>of?
>
>That is EXACTLY what Jennifer did. Not only that, she did the smae thing I
>did, find someones worst art and point out how bad it is! EXACTLY! See, I
>just proved my poit. You don't like it when people your freinds art crap,
>yet when you friend makes fun of my art and calls it crap and calls me a
>talentless loser, ITS NOT IMPORTANT! Wow, WHAT AN IDEA! Only your buddies
>can make fun of others and act like they are all that? Oh, how nice!
Untrue.
I went through each and every one of Jennifer's posts and I can't
find a single example of her taking -any-body's art and vilifying it as
you're attempting to do with hers. In fact, she went out of her way to be
vague and make general criticisms rather than obsess on any one person.
There is no post where she makes fun of anybody's art or call anybody a
loser (until her very last post when she left in disgust). Nor is she my
'friend' as I've never met her nor spoken to her save for two brief e-mail
exchanges. By this time, I probably know -you- better than I do Jennifer.
Now, if she said such things to you in e-mail, that's another
matter entirely, and I can't speak to it at all since I haven't read any of
it. Regardless, you -don't- bring that -here-; that's a personal matter
between the two of you. And if your above responses are being fueled by
that private exchange, all the more reason for keeping it in your mailbox.
>> What's the difference between a talented artist and a talented
>>furry artist? If she's one, then the other must follow suit. If her work
>
>Whats the diffrence? Well, A talented artist draws good, and when a
>talented artist tries to draw anthromphic, ist usually just a human with a
>animal head because their PERFECT KINDOM OF ART does not allow for the
>crativeness it requires to morph an animal and human. Anyone (Includeing
>Jennifer) can draw a human with a tail and animal head. Of course my art
>is terrable, after all the arms and legs are too short and the bodies are
>too long, what? ferrets are like that? So what, furry art is not about
>combineing humans a animals, its about makeing humans in fur suits.
Furry art is about furries. Period. It doesn't matter if we're
talking about Omaha, Garfield, Archy and Mehitabel, or the Flub-a-dub. How
it's done is irrelevant to whether or not it's done at all. Jennifer is a
talented artist who also draws furries; therefore she is a talented furry
artist. Opinions as to how well she's doing them are entirely subjective.
>Or maybe now
>
>>is professionally done, and I maintain that it is, and if she is a talented
>>artists at all, as you reluctantly admit, then it appears that your only
>>real gripe is in her artistic vision, and that is something you have to
>>deal with on your own.
>Or lack of artistic vision. "Oh boy, Lets see, This book says I sould draw
>human like this, and a fox like this, so now all I have to do is to paste a
>fox head onto a human!" Oh boy, what orginality! Of course I suck because I
>have to think about what I am going to draw. "Oh lets see, ferrets have
>long bodies a necks, and short arms and legs, so now I have to THINK about
>how I am going to make this look human, but still keep it a ferret" Oh, but
>we can't have THAT, that would be unprofesional.
You may not like it; it may not set well with your artistic
disposition; irregardless, it is still valid. It is still something for
you to deal with on your own; it has no bearing as to whether or not she
does furries or whether she does them well.
-Chuck Melville-
http://members.aol.com/cmelvi6195/page1.html
JDupont378
>
> You may not personally care for the image, but that's entirely a
>subjective opinion. I certainly don't share that opinon. I see nothing
>unprofessional about the rendering. It may not conform to the traditional
I see nothing unprofessional either, its just not very furry.
>furry notions of beauty, but it has its own uniqueness and charm to it.
Unique? Charm? HA!
>Besides, I don't recall either you or Nate being all that fervent about
>conformity anyway. If anything, the image reminds me somewhat of Herman
>Miller's furry work, which is largely of a fairy tale/mythological bent.
>
Who? I wish you would stop makeing these vauge refrences.
>>
>>The SCFA did loose a talent Artist, a talented artist, NOT a talented
>>Furry artist.
>>The picture mentioned above looks like som bimbo with her head crushed by
>>a large hammer with a tail stapled to her back. I must say, she is most
>>likely a more technical artist than me, but the shit I drew that is too
>>embarassing to even post online is more furry than her art. Hell, I drew
>>aircraft more furry than her stuff.
>>
>>SO THERE.
>
> So there, what? Because you don't personally like it, it's crap?
>Isn't that dangerously close to the attitude you've been accusing Jennifer
>of?
That is EXACTLY what Jennifer did. Not only that, she did the smae thing I
did, find someones worst art and point out how bad it is! EXACTLY! See, I
just proved my poit. You don't like it when people your freinds art crap,
yet when you friend makes fun of my art and calls it crap and calls me a
talentless loser, ITS NOT IMPORTANT! Wow, WHAT AN IDEA! Only your buddies
can make fun of others and act like they are all that? Oh, how nice!
> What's the difference between a talented artist and a talented
>furry artist? If she's one, then the other must follow suit. If her work
Whats the diffrence? Well, A talented artist draws good, and when a
talented artist tries to draw anthromphic, ist usually just a human with a
animal head because their PERFECT KINDOM OF ART does not allow for the
crativeness it requires to morph an animal and human. Anyone (Includeing
Jennifer) can draw a human with a tail and animal head. Of course my art
is terrable, after all the arms and legs are too short and the bodies are
too long, what? ferrets are like that? So what, furry art is not about
combineing humans a animals, its about makeing humans in fur suits.
Or maybe now
>is professionally done, and I maintain that it is, and if she is a talented
>artists at all, as you reluctantly admit, then it appears that your only
>real gripe is in her artistic vision, and that is something you have to
Or lack of artistic vision. "Oh boy, Lets see, This book says I sould draw
human like this, and a fox like this, so now all I have to do is to paste a
fox head onto a human!" Oh boy, what orginality! Of course I suck because I
have to think about what I am going to draw. "Oh lets see, ferrets have
long bodies a necks, and short arms and legs, so now I have to THINK about
how I am going to make this look human, but still keep it a ferret" Oh, but
we can't have THAT, that would be unprofesional.
>deal with on your own.
>
>
*yawn*
DONT YOU HATE THAT!
Buster "I should kill myself just for that!" Charlie
CMelvi6195
In article <19970914170...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
jdupo...@aol.com wrote:
>In article <19970914105...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>cmelv...@aol.com (CMelvi6195) writes:
>
>>
>>>> What was achieved? SCFA lost a talented artist from its archives,
>>>
>>>It was her own action, not anyone else's. Nobody forced her to go...
>>
>> True. But the archive still lost a talented artist.
>>
>>
>
>I just took a moment to look a good LONG look at her anthrompohic art.
>
>Take a look:
>http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/7636/VIXEN.JPG
>Damn,. no wonder she was bashing my older art. I woulden't post that
>picture if you payed me! But of course calling other peoples art CRAP will
>get you defended, but me pointing out that I would rather see some shitty
>sonic clone than this stuff will probally get me flamed. BUT WHAIT!
You may not personally care for the image, but that's entirely a
subjective opinion. I certainly don't share that opinon. I see nothing
unprofessional about the rendering. It may not conform to the traditional
furry notions of beauty, but it has its own uniqueness and charm to it.
Besides, I don't recall either you or Nate being all that fervent about
conformity anyway. If anything, the image reminds me somewhat of Herman
Miller's furry work, which is largely of a fairy tale/mythological bent.
>
>The SCFA did loose a talent Artist, a talented artist, NOT a talented
>Furry artist.
>The picture mentioned above looks like som bimbo with her head crushed by
>a large hammer with a tail stapled to her back. I must say, she is most
>likely a more technical artist than me, but the shit I drew that is too
>embarassing to even post online is more furry than her art. Hell, I drew
>aircraft more furry than her stuff.
>
>SO THERE.
So there, what? Because you don't personally like it, it's crap?
Isn't that dangerously close to the attitude you've been accusing Jennifer of?
What's the difference between a talented artist and a talented
furry artist? If she's one, then the other must follow suit. If her work
is professionally done, and I maintain that it is, and if she is a talented
artists at all, as you reluctantly admit, then it appears that your only
real gripe is in her artistic vision, and that is something you have to
deal with on your own.
-Chuck Melville-
http://members.aol.com/cmelvi6195/page1.html
Nate Patrin
>
> In article <01bcc0d4$7dd2d4a0$b9c65ea0@default>, "Nate wrote:
>
> >OK. I'm going to try and reply to this in a rational manner, even though
> >this IS Chuck Melville, who branded me with the Bound For Obscurity
label
> >for not being a pinup artist... er, I digress. >;o)>
>
> And that is an outright lie to start with, Nate, as I have never
> said any such thing, not in public and not in private. You're going to
> have to quote us chapter and verse to back up that statement.
CMelvi6195 <cmelv...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970905121...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>I have no idea where your own thing will take you. But
> it won't get you to the same levels as Terrie et al...
Yep. I'm a liaaaaaaaar... I like it... it feels good... (H. Rollins)
> >Which would have been our fault if Jennifer hadn't tried to take us so
> >damned seriously... I mean, damn! We're a couple-a teenage lobotomies
who
> >listen to noisy rock music and draw mustelids with huge guns and
raccoons
> >in raver gear, respectively. Why should she have cared?
>
> That, unfortunately, is a good question. I certainly didn't your
> remarks seriously at all;
Which ones- the facetious, humorous ones or ALL of them? There was some
important stuff said whether you paid attention or not...
> Even so, I still
> read these as being a call for putting forth a professional attitude in
the
> work, an attitude that she felt was lacking in several pieces.
Like I mention later, some people can't muster a professional attitude
because they have no faith in their ability to draw. They post stuff
anyways, though, because people like it.
> Sorry, but your own tone was every bit as condescending and
> arrogant as hers was; if anything, her attitude was a direct response to
> yours. Your humor doesn't always carry through and comes off more as
> smartass jibes. I was as put off by it as she was. You reap what you
sow.
You were put off by THAT? Oh geez... lighten the smeg up, man! This
broom-up-yer-ass mentality is one of the reasons this newsgroup is pissing
me off. And I really doubt my tone was any more condescending than hers- or
yours.
> Yeah, well, Buster is another case of an individualistic style
> that is difficult to follow. As I've said elsewhere, I can't tell from
one
> post to the next what point he's trying to make or if he's serious,
> satirical, or simply dwelling in another dimension. Gonzo chaos might be
> cool, but it makes for confusion; therefore, I generally skip past all of
> his posts and save myself the annoyance. I'm not surprised she didn't
> grasp his meanings either.
Heh. I bet you don't get "Zippy the Pinhead", either. ;o)>
> >Well she didn't have to go about talking shit to people to prove her
point.
>
> Until your own posts, she hadn't been.
Well, *I* sure as hell didn't talk shit to *her*!
> Encouraging people to do their best is hardly -dictating-, Nate.
> If someone saying to you "I want you to go out there today and draw like
> you've never drawn before!" is what you consider to be -dictating-, then
> you are far too sensitive about it.
It is when you consider some peoples' standards. For some people, "doing
your best" means taking several years of expensive art school and drawing
15 hours a day, which is something I can't do. People should work at the
pace they're comfortable with.
> >> For what it's worth, I was in full agreement with her sentiments.
> >
> >Hooray for you.
>
> Thank you; I accept that cheer for the juvenile sarcasm it truly
> is. May I have some more, sir?
Pftttt. You just said in another post that nobody can tell what anyone
really means due to the lack of nuances and body language. I guess that
only applies to people you agree with.
> >I work my ass off on a lot of pics and give it a "professional attitude"
> >and people still think it's Frigidare material.
>
> Have any of us here said so? And are you speaking of a consensus
> or of a few individual rotten little cusses?
I'd say at least half a dozen people have looked at my stuff and suggested
an overhaul.
> >Besides, some people are
> >too modest or ashamed about their art to say anything really positive
about
> >it, but they post it anyway in case someone likes it. I find these
> >"unprofessional" people far less irritating than the ego-trippers...
>
> Maybe they could start posting without the disclaimer then;
> there's really no need to apologize for something you've created, and if
> there is, then it probably shouldn't be there.
How many times do I have to say this: There are people out there who hate
*everything* they do and apologize for the coolest stuff. Just look at
Spaceroo's stuff on the SCFA. Do you think his stuff "probably shouldn't be
there"?
> >What are you talking about? She said herself that the last straw that
made
> >her quit the SCFA was a pic on Recent Uploads "with a notebook hole in
it".
> >Never mind that the sketch was pretty good...
>
> I agree the sketch was good. It was still an unprofessional
> presentation; you wouldn't take that around in a portfolio to an
interview
> or hang in a gallery. You'd find a way to get rid of the imperfection
> first. You present a grade-A presentation. A quick fix with Photoshop
> would eliminate that notebook hole pretty easily, and if the artist
didn't
> have the proper program, odds are s/he knew somebody who did. Not having
> done so is a show of a careless attitude.
Oh geez... now we're getting into some absurd territory here. Not everyone
knows somebody who has Photoshop. Not everyone feels as though they should
perfect every single nuance of a pic before posting it because the best
stuff has already been taken care of. And not everyone WANTS TO BE A
PROFESSIONAL. Many are doing this for *fun*, and could care less if their
stuff looks like a scribble or a technical drawing. Deal with it. Since
when did rat.org claim to be a "Professional" gallery? You're striving for
something that, as you mentioned before, is idealistic and unrealistic. Get
over it.
> That was my previous point, Nate; not only did she lose your
> support early on, she earned your antagonism... -before- she started
making
> her own mistakes in trying to argue with you.
That's her problem... I'm sorry.
> >My first follow-up post to her was, while light-hearted and a bit
strange,
> >nowhere near the hostility I began to receive in return. If your news
> >client will let you, make it so your client shows "All Messages" instead
of
> >"Unread Only". Read my follow-up.
>
> I already have it all archived, and I have been referring to it as
> I've been writing these replies. (And thank you for assuming that I'm a
> novice who wouldn't know how to retrieve old articles.)
From someone you assumed to be a dipwad who didn't know how to follow a
thread, you're welcome.
> As I remark
> elsewhere, your first reply was -not- light-hearted (or, if it was
intended
> as such did not come out that way), but was as arrogant, condescending
and
> pissant as you claim Jennifer's was. No wonder she was pissed in her
reply.
Dammit, Beavis, what the hell is your definition of 'angst'? "Anything with
the name 'Nate Patrin' attached"? With an outlook like that it's no wonder
I don't trust your opinion. If anyone here agrees with Senor Melville about
my original followup, please come forward.
> >Higher ideals my ass. I'm not the one going around telling people not to
> >upload their sketches because they might bump my latest pic off Recent
> >Uploads... much less the one referring to those sketches as "crap"...
>
> Her ideal was Professionalism. That seemed to be more than
> anybody else was aspiring to.
My ideal was Having Fun. My standards are pretty low, huh?
> >> But, damn it! She was -right- in the beginning!
> >
> >@set me=Joel_Robinson: "Oh, I don't know..."
>
> (sigh) No, I suppose you don't.
Then again, I don't know Jack. (snicker)
Nate Patrin
CMelvi6195 <cmelv...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970914105...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>
> >It would have if it was used to prove Jennifer's *real* opinion on what
> >"professional" art was...
>
> Nope. Not even. It was intended as private e-mail, and that's
> where it belonged. Whether or not it helped to prove anything is
> irrelevant. You don't bring private conversations into public.
Wellllll, sometimes it helps prove just how things get rolling as far as
big massive flamewars go. Hell, I wouldn't know why David Gonterwhatsit is
the way he is unless rat had his e-mail correspondence on his 'twits' page.
But I guess we're getting into a big morality argument that can't really be
won.
> >I personally think complaining about sharing a site with sketchy art
does
> >seem reasonably elitist... if not just plain pretentious.
>
> Elitism is not interchangeable with pretentiousness. Elitism is aspiring
> to a higher set of rules or ideals; pretentiousness is simply claiming to
> do so, but not carrying through -- it's a snobbish pretense.
I didn't say they were the same thing. Gads.
> At any rate, at that stage she wasn't complaining about sharing
> space with sketchy art, but with having her art that was showcased in the
> recent uploads page being so swiftly pushed off by uploads of sketchy
> material.
And that's more justifiable?
> To that end, she even put forth suggestions that perhaps instead
> of going directly to the Recent Upload thumbnails, the sketchy art could
be
> deposited directly into the individual archives, leaving only the best
and
> complete images to be showcased.
But that means someone would have to judge what's "complete", be it a
confused artist or the already-under-fire Ratman himself.
> >Probably because Jennifer had a temper shorter than Muggsy Bogues.
>
> Who?
Guard for the Charlotte Hornets and shortest NBA player ever at 5'3". More
useless trivia from a pop culture junkie.
> No, your first response to her was adversarial, smart-alecky,
> arrogant, and antagonistic. I'm not entirely surprised she responded as
> she did; she thought you were deliberately dissing her right off the bat.
> That's how it reads to me as well.
If this little exhibition of touchiness will force me to repost my whole
message in its entirety so you can point out every little thing in that
post that was adversarial and arrogant and antagonistic, then so freakin'
be it. (Strange, though... first you complain about me being angsty about
my low self-esteem, then you complain about my... er, 'arrogance'. What
the...?)
> Yes, she should have. And frankly in the beginning she was
> dealing with the first responses quite adult-like. What she wasn't
> prepared for was the attitude-posts that came next.
I found her response to my post to be snotty and hopelessly hung-up over
stupid shit. Then again, she probably thought I was being condescending.
Pfeh.
> But that was -not- her complaint. Her complaint was that people
> were getting by with just throwing such sketches up without care or
> consideration, eschewing professionalism for convenience; a point I would
> have thought you in sympathy with.
I would if it was true. I dare you to find five artists on the archive that
*only* post slacker-ish, effortless work.
> >Because some people are *never* pleased with their art- but there *are*
> >people out there who DO like it. I pointed out in the thread that there
> >were several pics I hated myself that people wound up liking... and
> >Jennifer made some comment along the lines of "Well, it's not hard to
find
> >a fur who says they'll like your stuff". Gee, thanks. That makes me feel
> >special.
>
> Firstly, you took that personally when you shouldn't have; that
> was a collective 'you' in her statement.
Odd. She didn't seem to notice the fact that it wasn't just my own stuff I
was worried about but the work of other people. Guess you didn't notice it
either.
> And, yes, there are people who are never pleased with their art.
> They tend to be in a state of constant paralysis. Even so, I let the
> statement stand. If -you- aren't satisfied, why afflict the rest of us?
And if you're so... uh, 'afflicted', why the hell don't you just ignore it?
> I've heard your complaints about the staleness of other furry art before;
> will you make an exception in your own case? Even if other people like
it,
> why show it if you aren't at least 95% satisfied? Scrap it and do it
> again, and do it until it's the way you want it to be.
I think most people already do that, Chuck. The people that hate their own
art usually can't do any better anyways, at least not without a lot of
effort spread out over a long period of time.
> In which case the disclaimer is a sympathy plea, which only lends
> more credence to Jennifer's request to do away with them. I'd rather
view
> the art without a request to be kind and merciful because it was only a
> sketch from last year when they riding a train and they didn't have
> anything better to show.
> I'd be more sypathetic without the disclaimer.
Well, if you had people complaining about the fact you put 'sketches' up on
the SCFA page, they'd try to apologize for it, too.
> >>That's a supposition, with no facts to support it. It -may- be
> >>true, but she said nothing here to indicate that was her opinion.
> >
> >Interesting you should say that, 'cause...
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> Now, she -did- make complaints about her art on the Recent Uploads
> >> page being pushed off by art of the sort I mentioned above, but she
> >seemed
> >> more put out by being pushed aside
> > ^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >Where'd she _say_ that? One thing she mentioned being pissed about was
> >being upset about having something she did "yesterday" bumped off by
> >something someone did a year ago.
>
> Right in her very first post, she said:
<stuff I ignored... d'oh>
> >That's what continues to piss me off: I have some sketches I like- a
lot-
> >that I've been thinking of scanning and posting that I'm sure my friends
> >will enjoy but, gosh, they're not museum quality, so why bother?
>
> I don't know why not. You sound as though you're satisfied with
> them; wherein, then, is the problem?
Uhhhhhhh... some people have a problem with sketches?
>You're still not grasping the point:
> if you feel it's your best, or at least that it -is- good, then post it.
People already do. The sketches, the notebook paper, the second-period
drawings are all considered by many of their artists to be some of their
best works. But as Jennifer showed, sketches are "unprofessional" and
should therefore be ghettoized in some other corner of the SCFA.
> If you don't think so, then don't. But don't put up something and tell
us
> it's terrible; it's not only unprofessional to do so, or to tell us so,
but
> it comes off as a cheap sympathy ploy.
Hrm. Hey, lookit this picture description! "Felicia does a private reading.
(This was a pencil drawing that I was dissatisfied with at the time,
setting it aside to do a slightly better composition.)" Gosh, Chuck, why'd
you even post that?
> So, expecting you to produce good work according to your measure
> is screwing with your mindset? You'll have to explain that.
People have fucked-up definitions of 'good', man. The only person who tells
me when and how to produce "good" work is me. Sorry.
Let's just let this die, alright? I think the only thing we've established
here is that we're both really pissed off at each other and to bring up
some points that thankfully died after most parties came to their senses is
really starting to get unnecessary. I'm gonna go watch "This Week in
Baseball"... after all this, guys like Albert Belle are starting to sound
pleasant.
-Nate "Albert Belle is an often hostile outfielder for the White Sox,
BTW..." Patrin
Farlo
CMelvi6195 wrote:
>
> Nate wrote:
> >this IS Chuck Melville, who branded me with the Bound For Obscurity label
> Chuck wrote: You're going to
> have to quote us chapter and verse to back up that statement.
Mercy!! Have mercy on us!
=:)
> Why should she have cared?
>
> That, unfortunately, is a good question.
I've been to her web page. *Nodnod*
> Yeah, well, Buster is another case of an individualistic style
> that is difficult to follow. I'm not surprised she didn't
> grasp his meanings either.
Buster's more than many.
He has ferrets. *nodnod*
>
> >Well she didn't have to go about talking shit to people to prove her point.
>
> Until your own posts, she hadn't been.
We each are responsible for our own behavior.
Even snotty little dragons ... =;)
>
> >To some people, that's dictating how to go about one's artistic business.
> >And you know how I feel about people telling me how to go about my artistic
> >business...
>
> Encouraging people to do their best is hardly -dictating-, Nate.
> If someone saying to you "I want you to go out there today and draw like
> you've never drawn before!" is what you consider to be -dictating-, then
> you are far too sensitive about it.
Dictating - now there's a word for you!
"But, how can a word mean so many different things?"
"The question is which is to be master, that's all."
>
> >> For what it's worth, I was in full agreement with her sentiments.
> >
> >Hooray for you.
Blech. =:P
>
> Thank you; I accept that cheer for the juvenile sarcasm it truly
> is. May I have some more, sir?
Surely - but I want my mirror back.
(Life will have no meaning if i cannot stare at my own ego).
>
> >What are you talking about? She said herself that the last straw that made
> >her quit the SCFA was a pic on Recent Uploads "with a notebook hole in it".
> >Never mind that the sketch was pretty good...
>
> I agree the sketch was good. It was still an unprofessional
> presentation; you wouldn't take that around in a portfolio to an interview
> or hang in a gallery.
I don't understand - isn't art is made for sharing?
I don't really care what an image was drawn on,
but I do appreciate that someone spent time to share their
vision with me.
Although, There are some spoogy exceptions =;)
--
Farlo =:)
Farlo's pages >>> Http://users.abac.com/Standard
CMelvi6195
In article <01bcc0d9$2f8ae800$b9c65ea0@default>, "Nate wrote:
>Nate beats a dead horse, Pt. 2
>
>CMelvi6195 <cmelv...@aol.com> yerfed at
>> jdupo...@aol.com ...
>>
>> >Why did It turn
>> >into a online catfight? Because she E-mailed me treating me like an
>> >inferior.
>>
>> Since I didn't see the e-mail, I have only your word on that, and,
>> frankly, I don't know that I'd trust a second-hand recounting of the
>exchange.
>> More importantly, if there was a problem between you in e-mail, it
>> should have -stayed- there. Bringing e-mail discussions onto the
>> newsgroups, I have been informed in the past, is a breach of nettiquette.
>
>> That was a personal issue that did not belong here.
>
>It would have if it was used to prove Jennifer's *real* opinion on what
>"professional" art was...
>
Nope. Not even. It was intended as private e-mail, and that's
where it belonged. Whether or not it helped to prove anything is
irrelevant. You don't bring private conversations into public.
>
>> Right there was a misinterpretation of the point she had been
>> trying to make. Whereas she was trying to encourage a better attitude
>> towards one's work, you immediately assumed an elitist attitude on her
>> part, and derided her for it.
>
>I personally think complaining about sharing a site with sketchy art does
>seem reasonably elitist... if not just plain pretentious.
Elitism is not interchangeable with pretentiousness. Elitism is aspiring
to a higher set of rules or ideals; pretentiousness is simply claiming to
do so, but not carrying through -- it's a snobbish pretense.
At any rate, at that stage she wasn't complaining about sharing
space with sketchy art, but with having her art that was showcased in the
recent uploads page being so swiftly pushed off by uploads of sketchy
material. To that end, she even put forth suggestions that perhaps instead
of going directly to the Recent Upload thumbnails, the sketchy art could be
deposited directly into the individual archives, leaving only the best and
complete images to be showcased. This might or might not have been
practical or even doable for Rat, but it was an attempt on her part to find
a middle ground of accomodation.
>>This -was- the turning point of the thread;
>> from that point, it escalated rather quickly.
>
>Probably because Jennifer had a temper shorter than Muggsy Bogues.
Who?
>Hell, my
>own follow-up to her was fairly reasonable and she jumped on me like a fur
>possessed... I don't think that ass-kissing slam against Micole was the end
>product of a long flamewar myself.
No, your first response to her was adversarial, smart-alecky,
arrogant, and antagonistic. I'm not entirely surprised she responded as
she did; she thought you were deliberately dissing her right off the bat.
That's how it reads to me as well.
><snip>
>
>> >Anyone Can say the -right- thing, but what they -MEAN- is the diffrence!
>>
>> True. But until evidence is actually given that their intent is
>> contrary to their words, I give them enough leeway to prove themselves.
>> Jennifer was out of line much later on when it fell to petty squabbling
>and
>> personal attacks; but maybe she might never have gone that way in the
>first
>> place if she hadn't been put under attack in the first place.
>
>Well, maybe she should have been prepared to have differing opinions thrown
>her way.
Yes, she should have. And frankly in the beginning she was
dealing with the first responses quite adult-like. What she wasn't
prepared for was the attitude-posts that came next.
>> >She said, LETS HAVE ARTIST POST THEIR GOOD ART!
>>
>> Correction: she said, let's have the artists post what they
>> -believe- is their best work.
>
>Most artists already do. I think my sketches *are* some of my best work.
>And if you disagree, tough.
My agreement or disagreement on that point is irrelevant. But I
do agree that her expectations were somewhat unrealistic, just as I
personally agree that there's nothing wrong at heart with just putting up
sketches. But that was -not- her complaint. Her complaint was that people
were getting by with just throwing such sketches up without care or
consideration, eschewing professionalism for convenience; a point I would
have thought you in sympathy with.
>
>> And this
>> was the one point I was in full agreement with Jeffifer over: if -you-
>> aren't pleased with the art, why afflict the rest of us?
>
>Because some people are *never* pleased with their art- but there *are*
>people out there who DO like it. I pointed out in the thread that there
>were several pics I hated myself that people wound up liking... and
>Jennifer made some comment along the lines of "Well, it's not hard to find
>a fur who says they'll like your stuff". Gee, thanks. That makes me feel
>special.
Firstly, you took that personally when you shouldn't have; that
was a collective 'you' in her statement. And she's right; no matter how
good or bad something may be, there is always -somebody- who'll like it.
That's a universal truth. It's tougher to find somebody who not only likes
your work but can tell you specifcally why and in what way.
And, yes, there are people who are never pleased with their art.
They tend to be in a state of constant paralysis. Even so, I let the
statement stand. If -you- aren't satisfied, why afflict the rest of us?
I've heard your complaints about the staleness of other furry art before;
will you make an exception in your own case? Even if other people like it,
why show it if you aren't at least 95% satisfied? Scrap it and do it
again, and do it until it's the way you want it to be.
>> Give us your
>> best, what -you- believe is worthwhile of -your- time. We want to see
>the
>> very best you are capable of, and we don't mind waiting for it.
>
>People already do. Even when they say they don't.
In which case the disclaimer is a sympathy plea, which only lends
more credence to Jennifer's request to do away with them. I'd rather view
the art without a request to be kind and merciful because it was only a
sketch from last year when they riding a train and they didn't have
anything better to show.
I'd be more sypathetic without the disclaimer.
>>That's a supposition, with no facts to support it. It -may- be
>>true, but she said nothing here to indicate that was her opinion.
>
>Interesting you should say that, 'cause...
>
><snip>
>
>> Now, she -did- make complaints about her art on the Recent Uploads
>> page being pushed off by art of the sort I mentioned above, but she
>seemed
>> more put out by being pushed aside
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Where'd she _say_ that? One thing she mentioned being pissed about was
>being upset about having something she did "yesterday" bumped off by
>something someone did a year ago.
Right in her very first post, she said:
{{I am very frustrated by the way folks are abusing this site. A site
which once had a reputation for being selective, and holding excellent
artwork is now a dumping ground for folks' "page of rough sketches" or
"I did this in two minutes" or "What I drew during 7th period"...
{{Folks...in recent uploads, there are 40 spots. Everyone's allowed up to
5 downloads a day at this time. There are over 200 artists on SCFA...I
usually see about 15 artists or so on the recent downloads page.
{{Now that's pretty good...EXCEPT...the thing scrolls so darn fast cause
folks are putting CRAP up!!
{{I know I depend at least slightly on the recent uploads page for
publicity of my artwork for commission purposes. I work hard on my work
before I put it up, and take pride in it. And it's off recent uploads in
less than 24 hours. (I've timed it. seen stuff up for as short a time as
12 hours)..}}
>> by folks who didn't seem to care as
>> deeply about their work as she felt about hers. She also said, though,
>> that she didn't mind -if- the art by others was actually something they
>put
>> their very best effort into.
>
>I've met a lot of furs who have work on the SCFA and hate it. If they
>believed in that philosophy of Jennifer's, they wouldn't have anything up.
>The problem is, these self-loathing artists do incredible work and keep
>putting it up because it means something to people. Whether or not these
>people put some sort of super-pro sis-boom-bah "I love this pic" feeling
>behind it may make a difference, but in the meantime it doesn't seem to
>affect how good the pic is. The big problem is she expressed a severe
>dis-satisfaction with the fact that people are putting up sketches- and if
>there's one point in an artist's week where he or she does his most
>interesting, spontaneous and blatantly fun stuff, it's during sketching
>time. So what to do- post some stuff you put some emotional (if not
>physical) effort into, even if it looks unpolished; or put up an
>ultra-detailed yet soul-less assembly-line cookie-cutter illustration?
>That's what continues to piss me off: I have some sketches I like- a lot-
>that I've been thinking of scanning and posting that I'm sure my friends
>will enjoy but, gosh, they're not museum quality, so why bother?
I don't know why not. You sound as though you're satisfied with
them; wherein, then, is the problem? You're still not grasping the point:
if you feel it's your best, or at least that it -is- good, then post it.
If you don't think so, then don't. But don't put up something and tell us
it's terrible; it's not only unprofessional to do so, or to tell us so, but
it comes off as a cheap sympathy ploy.
>> I don't think it's elitism to want to produce excellent work, or
>> to expect others to want to feel the same way and act accordingly. It
>> might be impractical, or foolish, but it's certainly not elitist.
>
>It *is* elitist to try and screw with an artists' mindset, at least when it
>works for this particular artist.
So, expecting you to produce good work according to your measure
is screwing with your mindset? You'll have to explain that.
>> Or maybe it is. In which case, I'm all for it.
>
>Meh. Toot your own horn or dig your own hole, just don't impose your rules
>on my art.
Nobody is imposing any rules. Not even Jennifer, at least not in
CMelvi6195
In article <01bcc13c$e32543c0$05195ea0@default>, "Nate wrote:
>CMelvi6195 <cmelv...@aol.com> wrote in article
><19970914105...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>>
>> >It would have if it was used to prove Jennifer's *real* opinion on what
>> >"professional" art was...
>>
>> Nope. Not even. It was intended as private e-mail, and that's
>> where it belonged. Whether or not it helped to prove anything is
>> irrelevant. You don't bring private conversations into public.
>
>Wellllll, sometimes it helps prove just how things get rolling as far as
>big massive flamewars go. Hell, I wouldn't know why David Gonterwhatsit is
>the way he is unless rat had his e-mail correspondence on his 'twits' page.
>But I guess we're getting into a big morality argument that can't really be
>won.
That gets into a grey area I don't even want to touch.
Regardless, it's considered a breach of netiquette to bring e-mail into
public discussion without permission.
>> >I personally think complaining about sharing a site with sketchy art
>does
>> >seem reasonably elitist... if not just plain pretentious.
>>
>> Elitism is not interchangeable with pretentiousness. Elitism is aspiring
>> to a higher set of rules or ideals; pretentiousness is simply claiming to
>> do so, but not carrying through -- it's a snobbish pretense.
>
>I didn't say they were the same thing. Gads.
>
>> At any rate, at that stage she wasn't complaining about sharing
>> space with sketchy art, but with having her art that was showcased in the
>> recent uploads page being so swiftly pushed off by uploads of sketchy
>> material.
>
>And that's more justifiable?
I think it's a significant difference, yes.
>> To that end, she even put forth suggestions that perhaps instead
>> of going directly to the Recent Upload thumbnails, the sketchy art could
>be
>> deposited directly into the individual archives, leaving only the best
>and
>> complete images to be showcased.
>
>But that means someone would have to judge what's "complete", be it a
>confused artist or the already-under-fire Ratman himself.
I didn't say that it was a workable solution; only that she -was-
trying to offer alternatives. Truthfully, there probably isn't an ideal
solution that would have satisfied everybody, least of all Jennifer. But
she -was- trying to be accomodative in the beginning by making suggestions
and looking for input and ideas.
>> >Probably because Jennifer had a temper shorter than Muggsy Bogues.
>>
>> Who?
>
>Guard for the Charlotte Hornets and shortest NBA player ever at 5'3". More
>useless trivia from a pop culture junkie.
I'll take your word. I don't follow sports, and have no idea
whatsoever.
>> No, your first response to her was adversarial, smart-alecky,
>> arrogant, and antagonistic. I'm not entirely surprised she responded as
>> she did; she thought you were deliberately dissing her right off the bat.
>
>> That's how it reads to me as well.
>
>If this little exhibition of touchiness will force me to repost my whole
>message in its entirety so you can point out every little thing in that
>post that was adversarial and arrogant and antagonistic, then so freakin'
>be it. (Strange, though... first you complain about me being angsty about
>my low self-esteem, then you complain about my... er, 'arrogance'. What
>the...?)
It's not uncommon for the latter to be a defensive mechanism for
the former.
>> Yes, she should have. And frankly in the beginning she was
>> dealing with the first responses quite adult-like. What she wasn't
>> prepared for was the attitude-posts that came next.
>
>I found her response to my post to be snotty and hopelessly hung-up over
>stupid shit. Then again, she probably thought I was being condescending.
>Pfeh.
Precisely. One begets the other. And at that point, rather than
either of you back off a bit and try to cool things off, you -both- went at
it with seldgehammers. Jennifer was as much to blame as you at that point,
and even more so thereafter.
>> But that was -not- her complaint. Her complaint was that people
>> were getting by with just throwing such sketches up without care or
>> consideration, eschewing professionalism for convenience; a point I would
>> have thought you in sympathy with.
>
>I would if it was true. I dare you to find five artists on the archive that
>*only* post slacker-ish, effortless work.
It's Jennifer's complaint, so I leave it to her to point them out.
>> And, yes, there are people who are never pleased with their art.
>> They tend to be in a state of constant paralysis. Even so, I let the
>> statement stand. If -you- aren't satisfied, why afflict the rest of us?
>
>And if you're so... uh, 'afflicted', why the hell don't you just ignore it?
I generally do. That doesn't invalidate the point, though.
>> I've heard your complaints about the staleness of other furry art before;
>> will you make an exception in your own case? Even if other people like
>it,
>> why show it if you aren't at least 95% satisfied? Scrap it and do it
>> again, and do it until it's the way you want it to be.
>
>I think most people already do that, Chuck. The people that hate their own
>art usually can't do any better anyways, at least not without a lot of
>effort spread out over a long period of time.
>
>> In which case the disclaimer is a sympathy plea, which only lends
>> more credence to Jennifer's request to do away with them. I'd rather
>view
>> the art without a request to be kind and merciful because it was only a
>> sketch from last year when they riding a train and they didn't have
>> anything better to show.
>> I'd be more sypathetic without the disclaimer.
>
>Well, if you had people complaining about the fact you put 'sketches' up on
>the SCFA page, they'd try to apologize for it, too.
...I'm sorry, that doesn't quite parse. If people were
complaining about -my- sketches, -they'd- apologize for it!? (Even a
collective 'you' doesn't make sense there...)
>> >That's what continues to piss me off: I have some sketches I like- a
>lot-
>> >that I've been thinking of scanning and posting that I'm sure my friends
>> >will enjoy but, gosh, they're not museum quality, so why bother?
>>
>> I don't know why not. You sound as though you're satisfied with
>> them; wherein, then, is the problem?
>
>Uhhhhhhh... some people have a problem with sketches?
There are sketches, and then there are sketches. A sketch that is
a considered study of a subject or a sketch that is an excercise in
expressive scribbling is not the same thing as an incomplete sketch that
was whipped off in fourteen seconds and abandoned as an unfinished thought.
I love to see examples of the former, but have little or not interest in
the latter.
>>You're still not grasping the point:
>> if you feel it's your best, or at least that it -is- good, then post it.
>
>People already do. The sketches, the notebook paper, the second-period
>drawings are all considered by many of their artists to be some of their
>best works. But as Jennifer showed, sketches are "unprofessional" and
>should therefore be ghettoized in some other corner of the SCFA.
See the previous response.
>> If you don't think so, then don't. But don't put up something and tell
>us
>> it's terrible; it's not only unprofessional to do so, or to tell us so,
>but
>> it comes off as a cheap sympathy ploy.
>
>Hrm. Hey, lookit this picture description! "Felicia does a private reading.
>(This was a pencil drawing that I was dissatisfied with at the time,
>setting it aside to do a slightly better composition.)" Gosh, Chuck, why'd
>you even post that?
Because I thought it was still a competent drawing, and I make no
apologies for it. It was less than what I wanted, and I -have- redone it.
But even so, I thought the original pencil was still worthwhile.
>> So, expecting you to produce good work according to your measure
>> is screwing with your mindset? You'll have to explain that.
>
>People have fucked-up definitions of 'good', man. The only person who tells
>me when and how to produce "good" work is me. Sorry.
And wouldn't that still be encouraging you to produce good work
according to your measure?
>Let's just let this die, alright? I think the only thing we've established
>here is that we're both really pissed off at each other and to bring up
>some points that thankfully died after most parties came to their senses is
>really starting to get unnecessary.
Entirely up to you. Only one of us here is pissed, if that is
what you believe, and it's not me; I don't get mad. I was more annoyed
that what I thought was originally a valid point had been lost in the chaos
after the original poster lost control over the very thing she was trying
to evoke in others.
-Chuck Melville-
http://members.aol.com/cmelvi6195/page1.html
CMelvi6195
In article <01bcc0d4$7dd2d4a0$b9c65ea0@default>, "Nate wrote:
>OK. I'm going to try and reply to this in a rational manner, even though
>this IS Chuck Melville, who branded me with the Bound For Obscurity label
>for not being a pinup artist... er, I digress. >;o)>
And that is an outright lie to start with, Nate, as I have never
said any such thing, not in public and not in private. You're going to
have to quote us chapter and verse to back up that statement.
>CMelvi6195 <cmelv...@aol.com> wrote in article
><19970913120...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>> I think what amazes me most on this thread, is how quickly it
>> disintegrated. From the point it began with Jennifer's original post, it
>> ran fairly smoothly, even with disagreements, up until the point that
>> Buster and Nate both became involved. And then the entire conversation
>> went to hell.
>
>Which would have been our fault if Jennifer hadn't tried to take us so
>damned seriously... I mean, damn! We're a couple-a teenage lobotomies who
>listen to noisy rock music and draw mustelids with huge guns and raccoons
>in raver gear, respectively. Why should she have cared?
That, unfortunately, is a good question. I certainly didn't your
remarks seriously at all; I'd even suggested to her to just ignore them and
let them ride. Regrettably, she didn't and she has herself to blame for
what happened next.
>> Everything that Jennifer had said, or -tried- to say in her
>> first post was misinterpreted, digressed, or outright forgotton.
>
>Oh, I don't think I forgot a few of her statements:
>-"usually see about 15 artists or so on the recent downloads page. Now
>that's pretty good...EXCEPT...the thing scrolls so darn fast cause folks
>are putting CRAP up!!"
>-"Folks, have some dignity and only put your best work up. Cut it out with
>the crappy artwork. It's annoying. It makes you look incompetent and lazy.
>It's unprofessional. You wouldn't put your notebook sketches in a
>gallery, would you? Think about it..."
>
>Now what's up with that? "Only your best artwork"? Maybe those "crappy
>sketches" were considered their best artwork! I mentioned in my followup
>post to this (which is about the point where the thread "went downhill"):
Which was why I thought her point was impractical in practice.
The SCFA isn't an art gallery but a sort of foating sketchbook, and some
folks were actually putting up some darn good sketches. Even so, I still
read these as being a call for putting forth a professional attitude in the
work, an attitude that she felt was lacking in several pieces.
Sorry, but your own tone was every bit as condescending and
arrogant as hers was; if anything, her attitude was a direct response to
yours. Your humor doesn't always carry through and comes off more as
smartass jibes. I was as put off by it as she was. You reap what you sow.
As for Buster, Jennifer obviously ignored the fact that he
>was putting smileys after what she bluntly called "threats" and pretty much
>ignored the fact that Buster construed (perhaps accurately) that her gripe
>stemmed mostly from the fact that the proliferation of sketches pushed
>Jennifer off Recent Uploads.
Yeah, well, Buster is another case of an individualistic style
that is difficult to follow. As I've said elsewhere, I can't tell from one
post to the next what point he's trying to make or if he's serious,
satirical, or simply dwelling in another dimension. Gonzo chaos might be
cool, but it makes for confusion; therefore, I generally skip past all of
his posts and save myself the annoyance. I'm not surprised she didn't
grasp his meanings either.
>> Even
>> after she -clarified- her point, it was pointedly ignored in order to
>> defend some bruised egos.
>
>Well she didn't have to go about talking shit to people to prove her point.
Until your own posts, she hadn't been.
>> Jennifer was trying to implore the contributors to SCFA to take
>> more of an interest in the quality of their art, and to adopt a
>> professional attitude to their works.
>
>To some people, that's dictating how to go about one's artistic business.
>And you know how I feel about people telling me how to go about my artistic
>business...
Encouraging people to do their best is hardly -dictating-, Nate.
If someone saying to you "I want you to go out there today and draw like
you've never drawn before!" is what you consider to be -dictating-, then
you are far too sensitive about it.
>> For what it's worth, I was in full agreement with her sentiments.
>
>Hooray for you.
Thank you; I accept that cheer for the juvenile sarcasm it truly
is. May I have some more, sir?
>> I think they were a bit idealistic and somewhat impractical, given
>> that the archive is a center for amateur artists, rather than a formal
>> professional art gallery; but I think her point of approaching the work
>> -professionally- was a valid and important part. Treating your art as
>> something you would think of as hanging on the wall of some gallery, as
>> opposed to something your Mom would hang on the refrigerator with a
>magnet;
>
>I work my ass off on a lot of pics and give it a "professional attitude"
>and people still think it's Frigidare material.
Have any of us here said so? And are you speaking of a consensus
or of a few individual rotten little cusses?
>Besides, some people are
>too modest or ashamed about their art to say anything really positive about
>it, but they post it anyway in case someone likes it. I find these
>"unprofessional" people far less irritating than the ego-trippers...
Maybe they could start posting without the disclaimer then;
there's really no need to apologize for something you've created, and if
there is, then it probably shouldn't be there.
>> it's the -attitude- she was trying to encourage, rather than some
>> individual standard of quality that everybody had to meet.
>
>What are you talking about? She said herself that the last straw that made
>her quit the SCFA was a pic on Recent Uploads "with a notebook hole in it".
>Never mind that the sketch was pretty good...
I agree the sketch was good. It was still an unprofessional
presentation; you wouldn't take that around in a portfolio to an interview
or hang in a gallery. You'd find a way to get rid of the imperfection
first. You present a grade-A presentation. A quick fix with Photoshop
would eliminate that notebook hole pretty easily, and if the artist didn't
have the proper program, odds are s/he knew somebody who did. Not having
done so is a show of a careless attitude.
>> I was with
>> Jennifer all the way on this point.
>>
>> And then...
>>
>> She made a tactical error: she let herself get dragged into an
>> online catfight with Buster, and traded insult for insult, deprecation
>for
>> deprecation, and temper for temper. She got sidetracked into an argument
>> with Rat about whether or not his rules were arbitrary or whether he
>> responded to her e-mail queries. And somebody let David Gonterman in.
>
>He let himself in. Nobody'd willingly let him in...
>
>> Far worse is that Jennifer made a vicious swipe and accusation of
>> brownnosing to Lisa. That was where Jennifer lost my support.
>
>She lost my support long before that, man.
That was my previous point, Nate; not only did she lose your
support early on, she earned your antagonism... -before- she started making
her own mistakes in trying to argue with you.
>> Not only
>> was the accusation essentially incorrect, but it was totally uncalled
>for;
>> Lisa's had been the one genuine moderate voice in the whole discussion,
>> trying to cool things down. She didn't deserve the slap she got for her
>> trouble.
>
>Agreed there... for someone who'd squished my ego in a previous thread, she
>earned my respect back with her rational voice in this discussion. (Well,
>OK, she also gave me a fair critique, which is something I hadn't received
>in a while. ;o)> )
>
>> The tragedy of this is that, after trying to encourage SCFA
>> contributors a sense of professionalism and pride in their art, she
>allowed
>> herself to become -very- unprofessional in her online posts with Buster,
>> Lisa, Nate, and Rat. (And, with the exception of Lisa, none of these
>were
>> completely innocent in their exchanges either.)
>
>My first follow-up post to her was, while light-hearted and a bit strange,
>nowhere near the hostility I began to receive in return. If your news
>client will let you, make it so your client shows "All Messages" instead of
>"Unread Only". Read my follow-up.
I already have it all archived, and I have been referring to it as
I've been writing these replies. (And thank you for assuming that I'm a
novice who wouldn't know how to retrieve old articles.) As I remark
elsewhere, your first reply was -not- light-hearted (or, if it was intended
as such did not come out that way), but was as arrogant, condescending and
pissant as you claim Jennifer's was. No wonder she was pissed in her reply.
>As for Rat and Buster... well, Rat seemed
>somewhat confused and eventually justifiably pissed by the time Gonty
>jumped in. Buster was, as usual, being silly and noisy enough to draw
>attention away from the fact that he had something important to say. (Well,
>actually, I noticed the important stuff. I think everyone but Jennifer
>did.)
Rat was short and curt in several of his replies, and that wasn't
helping the situation. However, I'd give Rat far more leeway here as he'd
had plenty to be irritated about, -especially- with Gonterman jumping in.
He was more of an aggrieved bystander in this than anybody else, except for
Lisa.
>> With her higher ideals,
>> Jennifer had the farthest to fall than the rest.
>
>Higher ideals my ass. I'm not the one going around telling people not to
>upload their sketches because they might bump my latest pic off Recent
>Uploads... much less the one referring to those sketches as "crap"...
Her ideal was Professionalism. That seemed to be more than
anybody else was aspiring to. Whether you consider it valid is irrelevant;
that -she- considered valid is entirely relevant and that she failed to
live up to it is the entire point.
>> What was achieved? SCFA lost a talented artist from its archives,
>
>It was her own action, not anyone else's. Nobody forced her to go...
True. But the archive still lost a talented artist.
>> that same artist loses much of her professional veneer in front of an
>> entire assemblage, and everybody else breathes deep in relief because the
>> nasty lady is gone.
>
>Well, I'm sorry... but she kind of went off the deep end near the end of
>it. The "Farewell... losers" bit was more proof than anyone needed.
I don't disagree with that.
>> And someone let David Gonterman in. Hardly much of a
>> gain for the first real flamewar we've had on AFF in months.
>
>NOBODY let him in. OK? Gad. Unless you count the fact that people replied
>to him- and let's face it, replying to that kid's easier than diving for a
>tenner lying on the sidewalk.
Don't worry about the Gonterman references, Nate; it's a writing
style thing. Chill.
>> I really do hesitate to make a martyr out of Jennifer. I offered
>> my support earlier on for her position, but I was frankly appalled by her
>> later actions, and for her treatment to Lisa. That professionalism she
>was
>> trying to instill doesn't begin with a blank sheet of paper or end with a
>> masterpiece on a museum wall; it is an attitude that is always -on-; it
>> isn't a sometime thing that comes off after 5:00, but is worn through the
>> waking hours, even when dealing with the most pig-headed and immature, as
>> difficult as that can be. And Jennifer blew it.
>>
>> But, damn it! She was -right- in the beginning!
>
>@set me=Joel_Robinson: "Oh, I don't know..."
(sigh) No, I suppose you don't.
-Chuck Melville-
http://members.aol.com/cmelvi6195/page1.html